CAN WE REALLY SAVE THE PLANET BY ELIMINATING MEAT FROM OUR DIETS?

"The diet addresses the major role of farming – especially livestock – in driving climate change, the destruction of wildlife and the pollution of rivers and oceans. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines."From an article in one of last week's issues of The Guardian (New Plant-Focused Diet Would 'Transform' Planet’s Future, Say Scientists)

"This was clearly a highly biased group, and the outcome of their report was therefore inevitably a foregone conclusion. Convening a one-sided group on a topic cannot be expected to produce a balanced outcome. It would be like pretending to negotiate an agreement in Congress with only one party at the table. Like-minded people talking to themselves is not a scientific debate, and the product of these inbred conversations cannot be considered a scientific product."Nina T, chiming in from her blog (discussed below)

If you are a person who eschews meat because of a love of animals; while I don't necessarily agree with that viewpoint, I get it. However, if you are a person who avoids meat because you believe it's good for the health of both our planet and the people living on our planet, research has shown that this is simply not true (I'll show you why momentarily).

I bring this up because one of the oldest and most celebrated medical journals in the world (LANCET) recently published a position paper (you would be correct in calling it a "MEDICAL GUIDELINE"), by 37 authors, titled Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems. Citing "potentially catastrophic damage to the planet," the authors called for a new "planetary health diet" that among other things, would dramatically reduce meat consumption, while saving 11 million lives a year in the process.

"Food systems have the potential to nurture human health and support environmental sustainability; however, they are currently threatening both. Providing a growing global population with healthy diets from sustainable food systems is an immediate challenge. Although global food production of calories has kept pace with population growth, more than 820 million people have insufficient food and many more consume low-quality diets that cause micronutrient deficiencies and contribute to a substantial rise in the incidence of diet-related obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases, including coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes."

This paragraph is dealing with two totally separate and distinct problems; one involving dietary choices and the other involving people who are simply trying to survive. The part about the preponderance of low-quality disease-causing diets is true. Unfortunately, it's doubly true of modern (wealthy) societies that are LIVING ON PROCESSED FOODS AND JUNK (calories) --- an all-too-common way of eating that I have declared "UNSUSTAINABLE" on many occasions, even though healthy food is more affordable than most pundits like to claim (HERE).

What's possibly even more interesting, however, is that this same phenomenon is increasingly true of the third world (or recently third world); a population seen each day as becoming more 'Westernized' (HERE). Allow me to show you, for better or worse, some of the Lancet's dietary / nutritional targets ---- targets that were specifically designed to with the Paris Accord (which the US pulled out of) and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals in mind.

THE PERFECT DIET IS A UNIVERSALLY HEALTHY DIET: While this sounds noble, because of radically different worldwide climates and cultures, the authors are calling it a "reference diet." For example, my Ethiopian daughters were used to eating curdled milk that was made by sitting it out all day in a glass jar in the summer sun. Undoubtedly great for one's MICROBIOME and GUT HEALTH, but I suspect most of us will be passing on that one (kind of like we might all be passing on THIS 'ULTRA-HEALTHY' FISH).

THE PERFECT DIET IS HEAVY ON VEGETABLES: I can certainly buy this --- as long as politicians don't get involved and claim that pizza and tots with ketchup constitute four servings of vegetables (HERE). The paper's authors also said that the diet should likewise be heavy on fruits. I've shown you in recent posts that thanks to genetic modifications, are infinitely more sugar-laden than fruit of generations gone by, potentially leading to an array of health issues (HERE and HERE).

THE PERFECT DIET IS HEAVY ON WHOLE GRAINS: Whole grains are certainly better than processed grains (which were, as they should have been, suggested to be totally avoided). But thanks again to genetic engineering, they are not everything they've been made out to be (HERE). The authors also suggested that Americans should be eating something like six times more BEANS than we currently are.

THE PERFECT DIET INCLUDES... "low amounts of seafood, poultry, red meat, processed meat, added sugar, and starchy vegetables". Some of this is good. Plainly stated, SUGAR IS A HIGHLY ADDICTIVE POISON. But comparing red meat to processed meat hearkens back a post I wrote on this sleight-of-hand nearly four years ago (HERE). In similar fashion to what I said about fruits above, these researchers did specifically talk about (white) potatoes being problematic due to their extremely high glycemic ranking.

Although there are many aspects of this diet I can heartily agree with (no pun intended), we have to remember it's source. Not surprisingly, the journal it was chosen to be published in (Lancet) has, over the past decade, acquired a decidedly left-leaning bent. Lest you doubt me, realize that they have actually been arguing that the world's healthcare woes could all be solved and that everyone would be better off if we were all living under Marxism / Communism (I'M NOT LYING FOLKS).

What I was planning on doing for today's post was to look up the financial or philosophical / religious conflicts of interest for at least some of the paper's 37 authors; an endeavor that even though I would enjoy doing, was going to require a significant amount of time. Thank goodness for NINA TEICHOLZ'S two day old blog post, Majority of EAT-Lancet Authors (Over 80%) Favored Vegan/Vegetarian Diets.

Nina T, author of the best-selling book, The Big Fat Surprise, revealed that of the 37 authors, 31 of them espoused veganism / vegetarianism prior to this paper. Rather than me providing you with a synopsis, I suggest you take a look at her short post yourself (HERE). Suffice it to say that it's painfully obvious that many in this group have an agenda --- an agenda that in some cases could only be characterized as "radical" ---- a word frequently bantered around by proponents when describing this paper.

"It's the first science-based diet that tackles both the poor food eaten by billions of people and averts global environmental catastrophe has been devised. It requires huge cuts in red meat-eating in western countries and radical changes across the world."From The Guardian

Conflicts of interest, however, are not the only problem with the Lancet's diet recommendations. Nutrition and public health authority, Dr. Zoë Harcombe, recently made a powerful accusation via the title of a post on her blog; THE EAT LANCET DIET IS NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT. She used various governmental tables to compare EAT to current caloric and nutritional RDA's, concluding that the Lancet diet is deficient in "iron, Omega-3's, calcium, potassium, sodium, vitamin K (particularly K2), vitamin D, retinol, and B-12" --- many of which are significantly deficient. Dr. H, an ex-vegetarian who says that she "respects all personal choices in this delicate area," ended her article with this statement.....

There are numerous other issues with this plant-biased advice. Not least – what will all these plants be grown in when there is no top soil left because we have replaced soil-rejuvenating ruminants with soil-raping plants?

Although "rape" might be a bit too strong a word for what she's describing here; she's mostly right. It was only last month that I showed you that in order to regenerate or build soil in an area bigger than your backyard garden; not only does it require livestock, but it requires lots of livestock ---- rotated and managed in a highly orchestrated and systematic fashion (HERE). The truth is, you can't do it without animals; no matter what anyone tells you. These philosophical differences in farming are what's created the chasm between the nutritional composition of meat that's raised in a sustainable fashion (see above link) and meat raised in commercial feedlots.

As crazy as it may sound to those hearing it for the first time; I'll repeat myself. In order to heal soil that's been continually and relentlessly raped, not by plants themselves but by decades of COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL FARMING, we don't need less livestock, we need more. We simply need to manage these animals in a manner consistent with the link in the previous paragraph. So; if you want to avoid animals or animal products such as eggs, milk, cheese, etc, etc, make sure you are doing it for reasons other than because you feel it's healthy or is the key to saving the planet.

For people struggling with chronic health conditions, HERE is part of the generic regimen I suggest you research to help you get better. And if you appreciate our site, be sure and like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK as it's a great way to reach an audience of people you love and care about most.

CHRONIC PAIN?WHICH DIET MIGHT BE BEST FOR YOU?

Why do I urge people struggling with CHRONIC PAIN to change their diets? When it comes to solving potential roots of said pain (INFLAMMATION), the lowest of the low-hanging DIY fruit is what you eat. In other words, you don't need a positive medical test to tell you that chocolate cake and Cheetos are problematic. A team of eight researchers from Australia's Newcastle University came to similar conclusions after looking at 71 American studies pertaining to dietary interventions for chronic pain (A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nutrition Interventions for Chronic Noncancer Pain). What can we learn from their results?

Firstly, that the average profile of a chronic pain sufferer was female, overweight, and over fifty --- the same profile for developing autoimmunity (HERE). Secondly, and more importantly; we saw that of all the various sorts of diets looked at, the type that seemed to work best (12 of the 16 studies in this category showed significant improvement of pain) simply involved shifting a person's overall pattern of eating away from junk, toward health. Take a look, however, at this statement...

"These limitations add to the disparity between the recognition of nutrition-related issues as key treatment goals and the availability of good-quality, dietetic-led, nutrition-related treatment options for people who experience chronic pain."

In other words, we have a situation here in America where not only is dietary advice rarely given in a clinical setting (HERE); when it is, it's frequently wrong (HERE are recommendations from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology). This is a shame considering these authors noted that dietary changes / interventions can improve the quality of life for suffering patients. Even if the advice is good, is the patient necessarily going to follow through? Unfortunately, doubtful. But those who do will see results, and it's about as simple as your doctor providing APPROPRIATE PATIENT HANDOUTS (whether online as mine are, or an old fashioned piece of paper).

Although not all of these points were in the study, allow me to highlight a few generic dietary recommendations of my own for the average person struggling to cope with their chronic pain.

CUT SUGAR & JUNK CARBS: Sugar and high-glycemic foods --- foods that break down to glucose rapidly (flour, pasta, white potatoes, bread, etc, etc) --- are inflammatory; particularly if GRAIN-BASED (HFCS is a great example). Over the past two decades I've noticed a common theme when people go LOW CARB (almost always for the purpose of WEIGHT LOSS). They frequently see an array of health or pain-related benefits not directly associated with their weight loss. Oh; I better also mention in this bullet point that if you are using DIET PRODUCTS, be sure to click the link.

INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF GOOD FATS: The fats you are eating are either driving or squelching inflammation (HERE or HERE). When people clean up their fats and do a PALEO / KETO combination, the results are often off the chart.

EAT QUALITY PROTEIN: If your protein sources consist of processed or commercially-raised meats, or commercially-grown poultry or eggs, it's important to realize that you could be doing much better. You can read about those differences HERE or HERE. For those of you struggling with chronic illness or chronic pain, while trying to get your protein from plant sources; realize that while not necessarily impossible, it can present a significant challenge.

SPICE THINGS UP: If you spend some time studying the myriad of anti-inflammatory spices (HERE is a post I wrote about yellow spices), you'll quickly see that not only can can you add a huge amount of anti-inflammatory firepower to your diet, you can add a great deal of flavor in the process.

BEWARE OF FRUITSANDVEGETABLES: Fruits and vegetables were purposely run together in the bullet's title to provide an example of what most people believe and how they behave regarding fruits and vegetables. Tell a person to eat more fruits and vegetables and most --- particularly your hardcore SUGAR ADDICTS --- will add fruit. YESTERDAY'S POST dealt with this briefly via a story explaining what's happening to fruit-eating zoo animals. The point of this bullet is simply that fruits and vegetables are different (HERE), and your diet should be top-heavy in the latter.

Just remember that despite the problems with this study; the final sentence stated, "This review highlights the importance and effectiveness of nutrition interventions for people who experience chronic pain." For those of you looking for other diet-related ideas, or maybe even some ideas that don't necessarily have anything to do with diet, but are all about reducing inflammation, HERE is a short post to browse. And if you appreciate what you are finding on our site, be sure to like, share or follow on FACEBOOK since it's a great way to reach the people you love and value most.

THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU DROWNING IN A SEA OF SUGAR AND JUNK CARBS

Writing for the political newspaper, The Hill, Sarah Hallberg recently penned a piece titled Government Dietary Guidelines are Plain Wrong: Avoid Carbs, Not Fat, in which she stated (cherry-picked)........

"Every five years, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services publish the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans," which detail which foods Americans should eat or avoid. The highly influential document directs food labeling, school menus, public food programs, and government research grants. Researchers claim the guidelines are based on 'the preponderance of current scientific and medical knowledge.' Yet, since they were first introduced back in 1980, they've barely changed, even though a recent revolution in nutritional science has cast doubt on old assumptions. Last year, at the request of Congress, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine conducted a detailed analysis of the guidelines' methodology and found it failed to meet basic standards of scientific rigor."

Hallberg, a highly rated internist, professor, and WEIGHT LOSS specialist in Indiana University's medical system (she is a proponent of VARIOUS LOW CARB APPROACHES), talked about the current government recommendations, showing, AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN MYSELF, that they are not evidence-based in any way, shape, or form. Dr. H went on to provide proof (emails obtained via various Sunshine Laws) that this was done purposefully. In other words, the SAME THEMES SO COMMONLY FOUND within the pharmaceutical research industry are alive and well in the food industry (which you already knew HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE). As is often the case, the powers-that-be have been PICKING AND CHOOSING THE EVIDENCE, while suppressing those findings they (or more appropriately, their financiers) didn't care for.

This is why, as I have asserted many times, the roots of the OBESITY EPIDEMIC can be laid squarely at the feet of the very agencies within our government designed to protect us, and is a great example of what happens when BIG GOVERNMENT sticks their noses into areas it was never meant or designed to. It's also why, despite the new evidence, things aren't likely to change any time soon (HERE). Don't forget to watch HALLBERG'S TED TALK on the subject titled Reversing Type II Diabetes Starts with Ignoring the Guidelines. We already know how conflicted "GUIDELINES" are here in America, but how big is the "SUGAR / JUNK CARB PROBLEM" getting to be? Allow me to show you by using new findings concerning one of my pet peeves.

Those who know me know that for at least ten years I have been frustrated by doctors, professors, celebrities, etc, using the terms 'fruits & vegetables' synonymously (HERE). New evidence shows that my chirping is spot on. A few months ago Newsweek carried a story by Brendan Cole with a title that should make you squirm as you contemplate the genetic tinkering taking place in our food supply; Zoo Weans Animals Off Fruit Because Its Increased Sugar Makes Them Fat and Rots Their Teeth. In the same way that both GRAINS and DAIRY are not the same as they were back in your grandfather's day, neither is fruit.

"Zookeepers have had to wean their animals off fruit -- which is now so full of sugar that it has made them fat and rotted their teeth."

My, how times have changed. The changes became even more glaring as I was cleaning out some old file cabinets this weekend and and came across a paper that was published back in January of 1992. Scientific American carried the piece by UN researcher, DR. NEVIN SCRIMSHAW, titled Iron Deficiency, which stated about this problem (ANEMIA)....

"The world's leading nutritional problem is iron deficiency. 66% of children and women in developing countries have it. Iron deficiency is identified with often irreversible impairment of a child's learning ability. It is also associated with low capacity for adults to work which reduces productivity. In addition, it impairs the immune system which reduces the body's ability to fight infection. Iron deficiency also lowers the metabolic rate and the body temperature when exposed to cold. Hemoglobin contains nearly 73% of the body's iron. This iron is always being recycled as more red blood cells are made. The rest of the needed iron does important tasks for the body, such as binds to molecules that are reservoirs of oxygen for muscle cells. This iron comes from our diet, especially meat. Even though some plants, such as spinach, are high in iron, the body can only absorb 1.4-7% of the iron in plants whereas it can absorb 20% of the iron in red meat. In many developing countries, the common vegetarian diets contribute to high rates of iron deficiency. Too much supplemental iron in a malnourished child promotes fatal infections since the excess iron is available for the pathogens use."

Whoaaaaa Nellie. An article in a major publication touting meat for health? No way would SA do that paper today! However, as I showed you just one short month ago, despite what we are currently being told by pseudo-governmental agencies (the UN and similar), there is no way to maintain or to build healthy soil naturally or rapidly without the astute use of livestock (HERE). So, thanks to current 'evidence,' meat is no longer good for us, but sugar is (HERE). Interestingly, according to experts such as ART AYERS, people can achieve good health via eating either a vegan or carnivore diet, as long as the proper bacteria for digesting what one is eating are present in one's gut (HERE).

The New Year is just one week old. It's not too late to turn over that leaf and make 2019 the year you got healthy. And just for you, HERE is a generic template to get you started. It's not going to be a perfect fit for everyone, but it will at least get you thinking; hopefully realizing that yes, you could do it if you put your mind to it. Be sure to like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK if you like what you are seeing and want to reach someone you love and value with potentially life-changing information.

VITAMIN D IS NOT THE ONLY REASONYOU NEED TO SPEND TIME IN THE SUN

"No life can exist on the Earth without the Sun. Everything on the Earth, from favorable temperature conditions to creation of bioorganic mass and free oxygen in the atmosphere is created only due to the rays of the Sun. In the living world, a number of systems have been created that are capable of using solar radiation, such as photosynthesis in cyanobacteria and plants, regulation of diurnal rhythms by melatonin, etc. The ability to synthesize sterols [hormones] is thought to be a very ancient property of living organisms because these substances are indispensable components of biological membranes. There is clear evidence that for the majority of animals living under conditions of the atmosphere, from amphibians to primates, a vitally indispensable photo dependent mechanism of vitamin D synthesis has been elaborated......"Cherry-picked from the January 2015 issue of Biochemistry (Vitamin D: The Sun Hormone. Life in Environmental Mismatch)

"There is an ongoing debate how to balance between beneficial and adverse effects of UV-exposure. On the one hand, solar UV-radiation represents the most important environmental risk factor for the development of non-melanoma skin cancer. Therefore, sun protection is a key principle to prevent these malignancies, especially in risk groups. On the other hand, artificial or solar UV-radiation is required for the cutaneous synthesis of vitamin D, that covers approximately 90% of the vitamin D-requirements of the human body. Therefore, lack of UV-exposure is associated with an increased risk to develop vitamin D-deficiency. We know today that vitamin D-deficiency represents a serious health problem, for an association of vitamin D-deficiency and multiple independent diseases including various types of cancer, bone diseases, autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases, hypertension and cardiovascular disease has now been clearly indicated in a large number of laboratory and epidemiologic studies. We and others have shown that strict sun protection causes vitamin D-deficiency / insufficiency and that detection and treatment of vitamin D-deficiency in sun deprived risk groups is of high importance. It is essential that public health campaigns and sun protection recommendations to prevent skin cancer consider these facts." From a 2008 issue of Solar Radiation and Human Health (Understanding Positive and Negative Effects of Solar UV-Radiation: A Challenge and a Fascinating Perspective)

"On a sunny summer day, total body sun exposure produces in the skin approximately more than 10,000 IU vitamin D per day. Considering this fact, concerns about toxic overdose with dietary supplements that exceed 800 IU vitamin D are poorly founded. Moreover, it has been speculated that a person would have to consume almost 67 times more vitamin D than the previously recommended intake for older adults of 600 IU to experience symptoms of overdosage. Vieth believes people need 4,000-10,000 IU vitamin D daily and that toxic side effects are not a concern until a 40,000 IU/day dose. Reports of other researchers are in line with these findings."Ibid

"Aside from its well-known effects on bone and mineral metabolism, vitamin D may also play an important role in extra-skeletal processes like immunologic diseases, cancer, or cardiovascular diseases. Studies conducted in the general population revealed a much lower overall intake of vitamin D than the proposed RDAs. Thus, strategies to increase the vitamin D intake in the general population are needed to match the existing evidence and recommendations."The findings of a 10-member Austrian research team, published in a 2016 issue of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Beneficial Effects of UV-Radiation: Vitamin D and Beyond)

What is Vitamin D and why is it important? There are about a jillion studies on the benefits of getting enough Vitamin D and probably an equal number on the detriments of having a deficiency. In fact, you could probably pick about any health related topic you choose and find Vitamin D studies reinforcing this idea. In other words, Vitamin D is of critical importance to your health. Why? For starters, it's the precursor for virtually every hormone your body makes. Not enough D, not enough hormones (can any of you men out there say "LOW T"?). This is why Vitamin D is a vitamin in name only, and if discovered today, would not be labeled as such. It's a hormone precursor, antiinflammatory, and immune system modulator all rolled into one --- and that's just for starters.

Besides the fact that past generations ate diets consisting entirely of WHOLE FOODS, what is another key difference in the way they lived? They were not only not exposed to artificial light sources, but were for the most part, regularly exposed to sunshine. As humans, we need sunshine. Don't get me wrong, we can certainly stay alive without it, but can we truly live and thrive without regular exposure to sunshine? Certainly there have been exceptions to the rule (for instance Eskimos). However, they made up for this fact by eating a diet containing massive amounts of cold-water fish (loaded with naturally occurring Vitamin D) Today I want to show you that for the rest of us, sunshine is about much more than getting your Vitamin D, and is increasingly seen as being interwoven into to the very fabric of life itself.

For starters, what if I told you that every cell in your body (you have something like 100 trillion of them) contains photoreceptors / light receptors --- organelles that sense the presence of light waves or photons. It's how LLLT (low level laser therapy) works. The process itself is known as "photobiomodulation" and describes the mechanism whereby the body turns light energy into ATP by boosting mitochondrial function. Although your body can get the energy to manufacture ATP from a variety of sources, anything your body does that requires energy requires ATP. In other words, ATP is the body's energy currency. It's also why any form of MITOCHONDRIAL ILLNESS OR DYSFUNCTION will affect the body in a nearly infinite number of ways.

UVA (Ultraviolet A) is made up of long waves, while UVB (Ultraviolet B) consists of short waves. Most of the sunlight we are exposed to in the Ultraviolet spectrum is UVA, which is the light that can penetrate both clouds and glass, and is the light that mostly causes the skin to tan (it's the light mostly found in tanning beds). Strangely enough, it's UVB that that causes the skin to burn (the medical word for sunburn is erythema) and is most involved in skin cancers (it's also the UV that causes the body to create Vitamin D). According to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (What is the Difference Between UVA and UVB Rays?), "UVA rays penetrate more deeply into the skin and play a greater role in premature skin aging changes including wrinkle formation. There are approximately 500 times more UVA rays in sunlight than UVB rays." Be aware that UVA can also cause cancer.

UVC (Ultraviolet C) is the most dangerous of the three, but is of a wavelength that does not make it to earth, being filtered out in the atmosphere. However, welders are exposed to UVC (welding burns, which are similar to sunburns), and UVC is what's used to irradiate products (water, food, surfaces, etc) against microbes.

While researching this post I quickly realized that every harmful sequalae associated with sunshine is not associated with exposure, but instead with overexposure. 25 years ago, the Annals of Physiology and Anthropology (Health Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation) stated, "Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from a natural source consists of only UVA and a part of UVB. Artificial UVR sources include UVC region and have serious effects on the human body, especially on the skin and eyes. The health effects of UVR on humans can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the amount and form of UVR, as well as on the skin type of the individual exposed." Again, the key here is the amount of exposure. In other words, there's a "Goldilocks Zone". Too much or too little is not good --- exposure needs to be just right.

How much Vitamin D do we really need to be healthy? Truthfully, it depends on who you ask. In a paper titled The Real RDA for Vitamin D is 10 Times Higher Than Currently Recommended, the late Robert Heaney (MD) of Omaha's Creighton University, "world-renowned researcher in the field of bone biology and vitamin D," showed how the mathematical calculations that brought us to our current RDA of 400 to 600 IU is off by at least an order of magnitude --- ten times. For the record, it was not that long ago that the official RDA for D was a measly 200 IU a day.

"Heaney does a great job of reviewing the history of the Institution of Medicine’s conclusions. He explains Paul Veugelers’ paper and how Veugelers showed that the IOM made a mathematical error in determining the RDA. The RDA should be 7,000 IU/day to get 97.5% of the population above 20 ng/ml – the level set by the IOM as the target for adequacy. (GrassrootsHealth research panel recommends a level between 40 – 60 ng/ml to maintain good health, which would compute to approximately 12,000 IU/day.)"

As if this were not enough of a shocker, I was personally told by a SPECIALIST IN FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE (he is an MD, professor and researcher with multiple specialties and world-wide cred) that for certain chronic conditions, he might have patients take as much as 80,000 IU's/day for awhile. The key is to monitor Vitamin D status with blood work --- simple and cheap. What happens if you get too much Vitamin D? Too much Vitamin D can cause things like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation ---- all vague symptoms associated with numerous conditions. Beyond that, you'll see high blood levels of calcium and kidney stones, and even in extreme cases, kidney failure. But........

What does it take to overdo it when it comes to Vitamin D? Mayo Clinic's article, What is Vitamin D Toxicity, and Should I Worry About it Since I Take Supplements? says it this way. "Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600 IU of vitamin D a day. Doses higher than the RDA are sometimes used to treat medical problems such as vitamin D deficiency." Healthline's "EVIDENCE-BASED" nutrition column (How Much Vitamin D is Too Much? The Surprising Truth) puts it like this.

"Although vitamin D toxicity is a very rare condition, recent increases in supplement use may lead to an increase in reported cases. A daily intake ranging from 40,000–100,000 IU, for one to several months, has been shown to cause toxicity in humans. This is 10-25 times the recommended upper limit, in repeated doses. Individuals with vitamin D toxicity usually have blood levels above 150 ng/ml (375 nmol/L)."

Bottom line, OD is not only tough, its occurrence is almost deliberate, and the risk of deficiency is far greater than getting too much. How much greater? Listen to what the Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics said back in a 2012 study titled Vitamin D: The 'Sunshine' Vitamin.....

"Vitamin D insufficiency affects almost 50% of the population worldwide. An estimated one billion people worldwide, across all ethnicities and age groups, have a vitamin D deficiency (VDD). This pandemic of vitamin D deficiency (hypovitaminosis D) can mainly be attributed to lifestyle (for example, reduced outdoor activities) and environmental (for example, air pollution) factors that reduce exposure to sunlight, which is required for ultraviolet-B (UVB)-induced vitamin D production in the skin. High prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency is a particularly important public health issue because hypovitaminosis D is an independent risk factor for total mortality in the general population. Current studies suggest that we may need more vitamin D than presently recommended to prevent chronic disease. As few foods contain vitamin D, guidelines recommended supplementation at suggested daily intake and tolerable upper limit levels. A meta-analysis published in 2007 showed that vitamin D supplementation was associated with significantly reduced mortality."

Wow, what can I say? Half (1/2) of the world population is deficient in Vitamin D --- a vitamin that's responsible for enough PHYSIOLOGY & HOMEOSTASIS that not having enough significantly and dramatically increases your chances of CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DEGENERATIVE DISEASES, AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, and early death. I also want you to catch the fact that food is not really a great source. Why do I mention this? Two-fold. Firstly, because "trusted" media outlets like WebMD have stated that you should be able to get your RDA from food. Secondly, these authors reiterate what we've already seen; that the RDA should be significantly higher than it currently is. And thirdly, if you want to get the proper amount of D, most of us have no choice but to supplement in some form or fashion.

It's not a secret that the body makes Vitamin D from sunshine (UVR --- ultraviolet radiation). What is not as well known is that this process starts with CHOLESTEROL, which happens to be the precursor for large numbers of your body's HORMONES. My biochemistry book from my days at Kansas State University said this of the relationship. "Cholesterol is the precursor of the five major classes of steroid hormones: progestagens, glucocorticoids, mineralocorticoids, androgens, and estrogens, as well as bile salts." From these five classes, come dozens of hormones, most of which the average person is not familiar with.

What's interesting --- especially for pale folk like me --- is that the lighter your skin, the less exposure time it takes to create Vitamin D; some sources say as many as 25,000 IU per day. If the conditions are right, in as little as five minutes. There are all sorts of online charts that you can use to help calculate optimum exposure times (variables include the time of year, the part of the country you live in, time of day, skin color, etc, etc). The real question that people want answered, however, is what are the effects of sun beyond Vitamin D?

SUNSHINE'S BENEFITS GO FAR BEYOND VITAMIN D

"There is growing observational and experimental evidence that regular exposure to sunlight contributes to the prevention of colon-, breast-, prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, hypertension and diabetes. Initially, these beneficial effects were ascribed to vitamin D. Recently it became evident that immunomodulation, the formation of nitric oxide, melatonin, serotonin, and the effect of sunlight on circadian clocks, are involved as well." From the December 1016 issue of Medical Hypotheses (Regular Sun Exposure Benefits Health)

"Most of the positive effects of solar radiation are mediated via ultraviolet-B (UVB) induced production of vitamin D in skin. However, several other pathways may exist for the action of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on humans as focused on in this review. One is induction of cosmetic tanning. UVB-induced, delayed tanning (increases melanin in skin after several days), acts as a sunscreen. Several human skin diseases, like psoriasis, vitiligo, atopic dermatitis and localized scleroderma, can be treated with solar radiation (heliotherapy) or artificial UV radiation (phototherapy). UV exposure can suppress the clinical symptoms of multiple sclerosis independently of vitamin D synthesis. Furthermore, UV generates nitric oxide (NO), which may reduce blood pressure and generally improve cardiovascular health. UVA-induced NO may also have antimicrobial effects and furthermore, act as a neurotransmitter. Finally, UV exposure may improve mood through the release of endorphins." From the abstract of a 2012 issue of Dermato-Endocrinology (Beneficial Effects of UV Radiation Other Than Via Vitamin D Production)

It's no surprise that exposure to sunshine creates benefits by creating Vitamin D. But what about the benefits of sunshine exposure that have nothing whatsoever to do with Vitamin D? There are many, and after reading this section you'll want to come visit us on the CURRENT RIVER more than ever! Let me hit you with just a few.

Remember how we've been warned time and time again to avoid the sun --- especially when it comes to "sunbathing"? Check out the astounding results of this study (Avoidance of Sun Exposure as a Risk Factor for Major Causes of Death...) published in the March 2016 issue of the Journal of Internal Medicine, the authors followed 30,000 Swedish women of all ages, from 1990-1992 to 2015. The authors determined that "Women with active sun exposure habits were mainly at a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and noncancer/non‐CVD death as compared to those who avoided sun exposure." Although their rates of certain kinds of cancer were higher, it was chalked up to the fact that they were living longer. I want you to re-read these final two sentences until you grasp the magnitude of what's being said. "Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking. Guidelines being too restrictive regarding sun exposure may do more harm than good for health." Not only is sitting the new smoking, add sitting indoors and it gets that much worse.

In 2014, Science Daily carried a story (Sunshine May Slow Weight Gain, Diabetes Onset...) on a study that was published in the journal Diabetes. They summarized the SCOTTISH research thusly.... "Exposure to moderate amounts of sunshine may slow the development of obesity and diabetes, a study in mice suggests. The researchers showed that shining UV light at overfed mice slowed their weight gain. The mice displayed fewer of the warning signs linked to diabetes, such as abnormal glucose levels and resistance to insulin." Less INSULIN RESISTANCE? Less OBESITY? Just from exposure to UV light? And what might have happened if they actually exposed them to real sunshine? The lead author went on to say, "We know from epidemiology studies that sun-seekers live longer than those who spend their lives in the shade. Studies such as this one are helping us to understand how the sun can be good for us. We need to remember that skin cancer is not the only disease that can kill us and should perhaps balance our advice on sun exposure."

A 2015 study published in the Journal of Crohn's & Colitis (Increased Ultraviolet Light Exposure is Associated with Reduced Risk of Inpatient Surgery Among Patients with Crohn's Disease) compared the average sunshine exposure of nearly half a million Crohn's patients (an autoimmune disease affecting the bowel --- HERE) to their incidence of surgery. What did they find?

"Average UV exposure was statistically lower in the group undergoing surgery. The ratio of hospitalizations per UV exposure for CD was statistically different compared with all hospitalizations. Increased UV exposure was associated with a lower risk of inpatient surgery. Accounting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, season, income, hospital setting, and comorbidities, the effect of UV exposure remained protective for inpatient surgery. Increased UV exposure is associated with a reduced risk of inpatient surgery among patients with CD."

The European Menopause Journal (Risks and Benefits of UV Radiation in Older People: More of a Friend than a Foe?) concluded that, "Inadequate sun exposure carries its own risks, and the older population are particularly sun deprived as recorded by low serum Vitamin D levels and lack of outdoor activity. Sunlight has health benefits dependently and independently of vitamin D synthesis." We see something similar with CANCER (there are myriads of studies on this topic, including Dr. Michael Holick's study in the journal Anticancer Research titled Biological Effects of Sunlight, Ultraviolet Radiation, Visible Light, Infrared Radiation and Vitamin D for Health).Just like the way that for decades the medical community warned people to eschew dietary fat (HERE) and currently warns us to try and keep salt intake at zero (HERE), we see similar warnings about being out in the sun --- especially as it relates to cancer. But what does the research actually say? It's actually quite amazing. In 2016, the journal Dermato-Endocrinology published a study titled Solar Radiation and the Incidence and Mortality of Leading Invasive Cancers in the United States that opened with these words. "Invasive cancer risk is inversely related to ultraviolet light exposure." In other words, more exposure to the sun means less risk of coming down with the the "Big C". Here are some CHERRY-PICKED sentences from this study.

"There have been many published studies and reviews linking increasing levels of ultraviolet B light or vitamin D levels to decreasing risk of cancers [the bibliography contains 15]. We obtained the North America Land Data Assimilation System daily average sunlight for the continental United States from 1999–2011. US Cancer Statistics age-adjusted-incidence and mortality was also obtained from the CDC. We found that cancer incidence for all invasive cancers and for 11 of 22 leading cancers significantly decreased with increased solar radiation."

The only two kinds of cancer which were not inversely associated with sunshine were liver and cervical cancers. However, a quick review of the literature shows that not only is none of this new, but liver cancer as well as liver inflammation both have studies showing that risk can be mitigated by exposure to sunlight. For instance, a 2017 study in Environmental Health (Ambient Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Incidence in the United States) revealed that, "Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most commonly occurring type of primary liver cancer, has been increasing in incidence worldwide. Higher levels of ambient UV exposure were associated with statistically significant lower HCC risk." The May 2015 issue of Nutrients (Can Skin Exposure to Sunlight Prevent Liver Inflammation?) showed something equally as cool.

"Liver inflammation contributes towards the pathology of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Following exposure to sunlight-derived ultraviolet radiation (UVR), the skin releases anti-inflammatory mediators such as vitamin D and nitric oxide. There are a number of potentially interdependent mechanisms whereby vitamin D could dampen liver inflammation, by inhibiting hepatocyte apoptosis and liver fibrosis, modulating the gut microbiome and through altered production and transport of bile acids. While there has been a focus on vitamin D, other mediators induced by sun exposure, such as nitric oxide may also play important roles in curtailing liver inflammation."

Still another study, this one from last March's issue of Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences (Does Sunlight Protect us from Cancer?) made it clear that there is something cancer-protective about sunlight that goes beyond Vitamin D. An Australian team of researchers concluded, "Evidence is building that sunlight may be protective against some internal malignancies. Because patients with these tumors are often vitamin D deficient, this has led some to propose that vitamin D supplementation will be beneficial in the treatment of these cancers. However, the results from already completed trials have been disappointing which has given weight to the argument that there must be something else about sunlight that explains its cancer-protecting properties." The proof is growing that Vitamin D levels are reliant on more than simply taking a dietary supplement; we are starting to see that there could very well be a "crystalline" or similar bio-structural difference --- kind of like we see with other vitamins; natural -vs- synthetic (HERE or HERE).

Last April, the journal Environmental Research (Association of UV Radiation with Parkinson Disease Incidence....) showed that of the nearly 70,000 PARKINSON'S patients looked at, "in this nationwide study, there was an age-dependent association between UV-B and Parkinson's incidence. This study suggests that reasonable UV-B exposure is associated with lower PD risk..." A 2016 issue of Blood Purification (Sunlight Has Cardiovascular Benefits Independently of Vitamin D) showed something similar with heart disease and strokes. "The most recent data from the World Health Organisation's survey of the global burden of disease show that high blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of premature death and disease worldwide. Epidemiological data show a correlation between increased sun exposure and reduced population BP and cardiovascular mortality. All-cause mortality should be the primary determinant of public health messages. Sunlight is a risk factor for skin cancer, but sun avoidance may carry more of a cost than benefit for overall good health."

While this is great information, how do you make "light therapy" part of your overall health and recovery plan --- especially if you don't live in California or Southern states, or can't afford to buy your own private Tahitian island to retire on quite yet?

SUNLIGHT IN PERSPECTIVE: MAKING IT PRACTICAL

Adequate and appropriate exposure to light is critical for health and well-being of patients as well as staff in healthcare settings. A combination of daylight and electric light can meet these needs. Natural light should be incorporated into lighting design in healthcare settings, not only because it is beneficial to patients and staff, but also because it is light delivered at no cost and in a form that most people prefer. From Impact of Light on Outcomes in Healthcare Settings by Dr. Anjali Joseph, from The Center for Health Design, 2006

What is the number one factor for developing skin cancer? A ten year old issue of Solar Radiation and Human Health (Understanding Positive and Negative Effects of Solar UV-radiation: A Challenge and a Fascinating Perspective) stated... "Numerous investigations analyzing sun exposure parameters have consistently reported an association between the development of melanoma and short-term intense UV-exposure, particularly burning in childhood. In contrast to short-term intense exposure, more chronic less intense exposure has not been found to be a risk factor for the development of melanoma and in fact has been found in several studies to be protective."

Spending time barefoot, walking, or swimming. Not only do these things supply the general population with a great deal of antioxidant power to counter the oxidizing effects of the sun via something known as "grounding" (HERE), but they expose us to something else amazingly healthy as well --- sunshine. What might be the actual mechanism for the health benefits of sunshine beyond Vitamin D production?

If you follow the work of neurosurgeon-turned health guru, Dr. Jack Kruse, or expert on light therapy, Dr. Ari Whitten, they both talk at length about not only how important exposure to real sunlight is, but that most of the benefits we receive from the sun do not actually come from Vitamin D. The sun's energy is known to increase the production of nitric oxide (NO) --- a powerful vasodilator that increases blood flow and OXYGEN to every tissue, cell, and organ in your body. This not only benefits the cardiovascular system, but it also serves as an important signaling molecule for the mitochondria --- the powerhouse of the cell (see earlier link). But there is more to the process than that.

For starters, beyond exposing yourself to real sunlight, it's important to remember that artificial light --- particularly certain kinds of artificial light --- can have adverse effects on health. For instance, in 1975 the oldest scientific publication in America (Scientific American) published an article called The Effects of Light on the Human Body that concluded.... "exposure to artificial light may have harmful effects." Honestly, in the nearly half century since, there have been dozens, maybe hundreds of studies showing this to be true, and that furthermore, these effects are "adverse" for a variety of reasons, including fouling the body's natural circadian rhythms.

While quality sunglasses can protect your eyes from too much UV, what about a simple little trick I learned about two decades ago from TED CARRICK --- rose colored glasses? Why do eye glasses that filter out blue light work wonders for so many people? For starters, blue light has been associated with a variety of chronic health conditions, including MIGRAINE HEADACHES and SYMPATHETIC DOMINANCE. It's a large enough issue that even Harvard's 'Health Letter' dealt with it (Blue Light Has a Dark Side), saying that "Blue light can affect your sleep and potentially cause disease." I'll probably do a post on this topic and combine it with a post on EMF (electro-magnetic frequency) pollution.

This brings me to an issue that I've asked many times. We know how important sunshine is. We also know that a significant portion of the world's population lives in locales where sunshine is not readily available year round. This begs the question, what sort of artificial light might best mimic the sun's effects? After asking people who have far more expertise than I do, the product most commonly mentioned was the Sperti Vitamin D Light Box (I have no relationship to this company). Bear in mind that there are plenty of others. Again, do your own research.

The truth is, light therapy has been around for millennia. Last March's issue of Photochemistry & Photobiological Sciences (A Short history of Phototherapy, Vitamin D and Skin Disease) discussed, among other things, "a 1932 review by the American Medical Association on the use of UV therapy in dermatology listed 34 skin conditions for which UV radiation may be useful." And that's just external (SKIN) disease. Although we discussed the effects of UV radiation on NO (nitric oxide) production earlier, allow me to show you a few studies on the relationship that have the potential to affect you internally --- affect your organs and organ systems.

"A few years ago it was demonstrated that nitric oxide (NO) is induced in skin by UVA. NO is able to diffuse rapidly across cell membranes... This helps explain the multiple roles it plays, including vasodilatation, immune defense, neurotransmission, regulation of cell death (apoptosis) and cell motility. The rapid release of NO following UVA exposure suggests the existence of latent stores. It is possible that UVA-induced NO may protect skin against solar radiation induced damages within 20–30 min, depending on UVA dose. NO-containing gas is effective in tissue disinfection and regulating inflammatory processes associated with acute and chronic wounds. It has been proposed that UVA-induced NO may also have antimicrobial effects, be involved in cutaneous wound healing as well as have anti-tumor activity."The extremely cherry-picked conclusions of the Norwegian authors of a 2012 study (Beneficial Effects of UV Radiation Other than Via Vitamin D Production) from Dermato-Endocrinology

"UVR has deleterious and beneficial effects on human health. In this issue, Liu et al. (2014) show that UVA decreases blood pressure and increases blood flow and heart rate in humans, which is beneficial to the cardiovascular system. This is likely mediated by UVA causing release of nitric oxide (NO) from skin stores. This mediator may have additional effects on human health."From a 2014 issue of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology (An Unexpected Role: UVA-Induced Release of Nitric Oxide from Skin May Have Unexpected Health Benefits)

"Although there is strong evidence to support that improvement in vitamin D status in early life may decreased risk for many autoimmune diseases, there are likely additional benefits from exposure to ultraviolet radiation. It is also known that the skin has the ability to produce nitric oxide (NO) a known vasodilator. Similar to cardiovascular disease it has been reported that there is an inverse association with increased risk for developing multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes and latitude. A person living at the equator has a 10-15 fold lower risk of developing type 1 diabetes. A person born and living at a latitude below 35° North had a 50% lower risk of developing multiple sclerosis later in life. It has also been reported that women who had the highest intake of vitamin D, had a reduced risk of developing multiple sclerosis by 41% and rheumatoid arthritis by 44%."From one of the world's foremost experts on sunlight and health; Dr. Michael Hollick (MD / Ph.D) of Boston University Medical Center. His study was called Biological Effects of Sunlight, Ultraviolet Radiation, Visible Light, Infrared Radiation and Vitamin D for Health and was published in a 2016 issue of Anticancer Research

And while everyone and his brother are hollering about the adverse effects of tanning beds, in similar fashion to sunshine itself (both of which we have been warned to avoid like the plague), artificial sunlight might carry more benefits than harms if used wisely. Case in point, a 2012 study from a team of four researchers in the Department of Radiation Biology, Institute for Cancer Research at the Norwegian Radium Hospital (Vitamin D, Sun, Sunbeds and Health) looked at studies on the subject (the bib contained 60 citations) that were published over a thirty year span between 1981 and 2011. Their conclusions are not quite what one would expect by a generation taught to fear the sun.

"Studies were included if they reported relative risk for melanoma associated with sunbed use, vitamin D and UV effects on human health. The overall health benefit of an improved vitamin D status may be more important than the possibly increased melanoma risk resulting from carefully increasing UV exposure. Important scientific facts behind this judgement are given."

I've never been in a tanning bed and am not advocating you use them, but this is interesting. I have a patient --- a professional --- whose life was destroyed after being maimed in a CAR CRASH (head on impact with a drunk traveling near 100 mph). The only two things that help her are our TISSUE REMODELING to help break up the SCAR TISSUE AND FIBROTIC ADHESIONS and her tanning bed. Again, there are probably better ways to get UV exposure in the winter than a tanning bed, but it's yet another example that seemingly everything you've been taught by the medical profession and media has been turned on it's head --- continued evidences of "best evidence" not being followed (HERE are many others).

Although I am not going to get into sunscreens here (look for that in a future post), it's important to realize that UVA radiation damages skin over time, causing said damage via OXIDATIVE STRESS. A very cool study from a 2016 issue of the International Journal of Food Science & Technology (Harnessing Food‐Based Bioactive Compounds to Reduce the Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation: A Review Exploring the Link Between Food and Human Health) essentially suggested that on some level, food can be your sunscreen.

"Appropriate exposure to sun is beneficial to humans and living organisms. However, excessive exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation can lead to photoageing, severe health risks and even death. Nowadays, the health risks of excess UV exposure have greatly increased due to the significant changes of global climate and human lifestyle as well as the thinning of the stratospheric ozone (a natural and effective filter for solar UV radiation). Therefore, protecting against UV radiation‐induced damage is a serious challenge. Research needs to address the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the UV‐induced damages and also explore the potential use of natural substances to combat the harm caused by UV radiation. Plant‐based substances have been found to exert significant protective effects against UV radiation. This review explores the most recent hypothesis of natural bioactive compounds (such as flavones, peptides, polysaccharides and terpenoids) as potential protective agents against UV radiation."

Bottom line, if undertaken with some wisdom and common sense, time with EARTH, WIND & FIRE (grounding, fresh air, and sunlight) can be a cornerstone of both health and recovery. In fact, it's been a part of my "UNIVERSAL CURE" post from day one. If you like our site and feel others need to be spending some time here, be sure and show us some love on FACEBOOK. Liking, sharing, or following is a great way to reach the people you love and care about most! Enjoy your day; I'm off to THE RIVER with my wife for a day of improving my health!

DIETARY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM DOCTORS

I've been saying it since I've been in practice --- the average physician knows scary little about nutrition; a fact readily admitted by bigwigs in the profession (HERE and HERE). A couple of weeks ago, Joyce Frieden of MedPage Today gave us an article on the subject titled We Have Failed at Giving Diet Advice, Says Former FDA Chief: Better Answers to Basic Nutrition Questions Needed......

It seems that on the first day of summer, former FDA commissioner, Dr. David Kessler gave a speech talking about OBESITY as related to diet in which he admitted that the medical profession (he's an MD) has failed in this arena. "Is a calorie a calorie? Can I eat unprocessed meat? What's going on in my brain? I think we have failed the American public when it comes to giving them basic information. If diet and exercise were the answer, we'd all do it and there wouldn't be a problem."

One of the attendees, Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and public health at New York University, said something about Kessler's lecture that I told you was the case a couple of years ago --- that as far as our national health is concerned, things really went south in the 1980's (a great decade for music, but a terrible decade for nutrition --- HERE). She and Kessler both mentioned specific things that occurred in the 80's that they believe led to the quandary we're in today.

Over-production of food by farmers

Wall Street profit mongers

Deregulation of marketing

Junk food became far more common

I'll not get into the reason this meeting even occurred in the first place (two senators were present -- a Republican and Democrat --- to debate their idea of how to solve the healthcare crisis -- something I declared to be a pipe dream a couple years ago thanks to our collective diets and addiction to junk foods of all sorts (HERE), but I feel that they really missed the boat on this one. Allow me to throw in my two cents.

First, the comments as is often the case, were not only better than the article itself, but showed just how much division there is within the profession on this subject (it appears that much -- maybe most -- of the medical profession is still stuck on the guidelines that were created in the 1980's and based on the food pyramid). You know; lots of talk about not eating any SATURATED FAT, EGGS, BUTTER, RED MEAT, etc.... Unfortunately, even though it was brought up by a commentor, no one really addressed the elephant in the room --- the fact that our government, via guidelines that were bought and paid for by industry research years ago (HERE, HERE and HERE are examples), is the party most responsible for a large part of the national health train wreck we see today (such as the fact that men are increasingly turning into women and women are increasingly turning into men --- HERE).

Secondly, if we cannot yet answer the question of whether a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, it's no wonder we have problems in this department. MICROBIOME aside, carbs and blood sugar are what most regulate our metabolism. It's why CERTAIN HIGH FAT DIETS help sick people get their blood work in order while allowing them to lose weight --- a fact that cardiologist, Robert Atkins, was talking about half a century ago. It's also why THIS BREAKFAST, which as far as I can tell is still being suggested by our government under their still-recommended DASH program, is almost unbelievable. Almost.

One of the commenters suggested that we should do away with government guidelines / recommendations concerning diet. Honestly, this would not be going far enough. I am of the opinion that not only have government guidelines brought us the obesity epidemic with all it's trappings (T2D and a myriad of others, including CANCER), they brought us the opioid epidemic as well (HERE). The unfortunate truth is that most GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES are bought and paid for by special interests and industry (see our posts on EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE if you feel I'm being too harsh in this assessment).

And lastly; to Kessler's point that if diet and exercise were the solution, everyone would do it --- I must disagree. Thanks to the fact that studies have shown that junk food, heavily processed food, and junk carbs / sugar are more addictive than hard drugs (HERE), our younger generations are becoming junkies, in many cases, before their first birthday. Couple this with a life lived electronically / sedentarily (HERE), and you have a recipe for disaster that is not going away anytime soon --- especially not because the government may or may not decide to create still another guideline.

Lastly, one of the article's commenters mentioned environment as a factor in the obesity epidemic. I can't argue, particularly with him specifically mentioning GLYPHOSATE. But it certainly doesn't stop there. The numbers of CHEMICALS and TOXIC METALS people (especially kids) are exposed to today is off the chart, with the absurd number of vaccines being promoted today being a significant contributing factor in this exposure (HERE).

In my clinic, I try and keep things simple. Although diet is not the chief thrust of WHAT I DO HERE, I can't ignore it. If you are inflamed, you sabotage every aspect of your health. Diet is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit as far as controlling INFLAMMATION is concerned. And because inflammation always leads to fibrosis (HERE), you are going to cause yourself both pain and an early death if you fail to answer Kessler's questions correctly (HERE). The handout I give my patients points them in the right direction (HERE), with dietary information on the top row. It also contains THIS POST, which is full of ideas to help you start taking your life back. And if you appreciate our work, be sure to like, share, or follow on FACEBOOK as it's a great way to reach those you love and care about most.

HAVING HEART PROBLEMS?WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T TRUST THE NEWEST STUDYPUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY!

"The authors concluded that author's self-declared financial conflicts of interest and source of funding do not seem to impact outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials."From the February 2013 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Authors’ Self-Declared Financial Conflicts of Interest Do Not Impact the Results of Major Cardiovascular Trials)

Just recently, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) released new guidelines lowering the definition of high blood pressure to 130/80. This immediately makes over half of Americans defined as having high blood pressure. While the committee was relatively free of COI, it was not noted that on average, each editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) received $475,072 in 2014 from Big Pharma. Who made this change? Oh, right. The ACC. Where was it published? Oh, right. JACC. The fact that millions more patients would be looking at starting new medications for the newly diagnosed ‘high blood pressure’ surely did not escape the notice of those pharmaceutical companies paying off the editors. The reason there is so little public trust in doctors is really quite simple. We’re not that trustworthy. Dr. Jason Fung writing for the November 23, 2017 issue of Medium (Clinical Practice Guidelines or Legalized Bribery?).He is discussing the study published in the previous month's issue of the British Medical Journal (Payments by US Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Medical Journal Editors: A Retrospective Observational Study).

As I've showed you time and time again, when it comes to the science behind our nation's medical care, THE FOX IS GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE, making the organizations (both public and private) charged with looking out for and protecting our health a REVOLVING DOOR. Just last week, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology published a literature review titled Supplemental Vitamins and Minerals for CVD Prevention and Treatment that called into question the validity of using any sort of nutritional supplementation to treat people with CVD (cardiovascular disease). In fact, they took it a step farther saying that when it comes to supplements and CVD, using supplemental nutrition "must be balanced against possible risks." Huh? Risks from taking supplements in light of just how brutally dangerous both prescription and non-prescription drugs (not to mention surgery) really are (HERE)? Surely you jest?

Please understand that I myself have written about using the futility of using "NUTRITIONAL MONO-THERAPIES" (single nutrients) for treating almost anything. However, as I have shown you time and time again in my EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE column (most recently HERE and HERE), researchers --- especially researchers who are creating the GUIDELINES that the rest of us are supposed to follow if we want to be "healthy" --- are on-the-take. And no group seems to be on-the-take bigger than individuals associated with the ACC and JACC (HERE and HERE are their --- ahem --- completely unbiased Cholesterol Guidelines from a few years back).

As I was sitting down on a rainy Saturday morning to write today's post (I was going to take this study apart bit-by-bit), Eric sent out a video of his buddy, Dr. Alex Vasquez, doing just that. Because heart disease in it's numerous forms is the number one or two killer in America (it's running neck-and-neck with CANCER), if you know someone with CVD or have a family history of CVD, this video is a must. Thanks Dr. V, you really kicked it with this one.

Although some complain that I am picking on them (HERE), the cold, hard truth is that the average patient is getting exactly zero guidance from their physician (family physician or specialist, it doesn't matter) regarding nutrition (HERE). That's why you must be your own biggest advocate when it comes to your health and the health of your family. If you like what you're finding on our site, be sure to let those you love and care about most in on the secret. A great way to reach them is by liking, sharing, or following us on FACEBOOK.

GOVERNMENT TIME MACHINE IS TAKING US BACK TO THE FUTURE

"Dr. Scott Gottlieb is by far the most conflicted person nominated to run the 111-year-old Food and Drug Administration. He's received payments from or invested in dozens of companies with business before the agency, earning millions of dollars in the process. Yet he will undoubtedly be confirmed as the FDA's next commissioner after promising to recuse himself from matters involving those firms. He also promised to adhere to any recommendations from the Office of Government Ethics. That's a joke. If the ethics office was doing its job, it wouldn't let him near the commissioner's chair for at least a year—the minimum time frame for letting a financial conflict of interest lapse—since any broad policy he approves during that time would affect some if not all those firms." The opening of Merrill Goozner's editorial for Modern Healthcare (Editorial: Which Scott Gottlieb Will Run the FDA?)

"When President Trump nominated Scott Gottlieb for commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, you could almost hear the sigh of relief that rippled through the health care community. Gottlieb is an internal medicine physician and a drug company insider, who presumably knows you need at least some scientific evidence for efficacy. The trouble with feeling relieved by Gottlieb’s nomination? He may not be much better... when it comes to protecting the public from the health and financial risks of harmful or useless drugs and devices." From STAT's Gottlieb as FDA Commissioner Would be Music to Pharma’s Ears by Judith Garber and Shannon Brownlee

Although there must be a million songs about wanting to go back in time (HERE'S A GREAT ONE), President Trump's new FDA Director, Dr. Scott Gottlieb is actually doing it. That's right folks, except for the great music (HERE), the 1980's are on their way back. We are almost halfway through 2018; is there anyone still around who really believes a whole-hearted return to the "Fat Free" way of eating would be a good thing? This is exactly what Gottlieb recently promoted in his speech at the National Food Policy Conference (Reducing the Burden of Chronic Disease). The website of the NFPC's parent organization, the Consumer Federation of America, says this of the NFPC......

"The National Food Policy Conference is a key national gathering for those interested in agriculture, food and nutrition policy. The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) was established in 1968 by national, state, and local pro-consumer groups to advocate the consumer interest before the U.S. Congress and federal regulatory agencies. CFA was organized by reform-minded advocates during a period of change and social protest. Many of these advocates came from organizations established earlier in the century—Consumers Union, industrial labor unions, and rural electric cooperatives, among others—who viewed the late 1960s as a time when political conditions permitted the establishment of new consumer protections and agencies. CFA is a research, advocacy, education, and service organization."

Although the NFPC is only one small part of the CFA, the point here is that they are a consumer watchdog organization who is supposed to be advocating for your best interests and educating the public on what constitutes healthy food choices. In other words, they are supposed to be looking out for those of us who at least on occasion, must make trips to the grocery store. Dr. G started his speech by talking about the 1.2 million Americans who annually die of HEART DISEASE and CANCER, stating that, "these maladies often result from a lifetime of accumulated risk". What are the risk factors he's most concerned about? Gottlieb kept it simple, saying, "we can’t lose sight of the public health basics – better diet, more exercise, and smoking prevention and cessation." So far I find it hard to argue. However......

Pertaining to smoking, Gottlieb discussed government goals of, "rendering combustible cigarettes minimally or non-addictive. At the same time, we’re also taking new steps to try and more rapidly transition adults who can’t quit tobacco altogether, and still want to get access to satisfying levels of nicotine, onto products that may pose far less risk to individuals compared to continued smoking." Sounds noble until you read between the lines. It seems that Dr. G is an investor in a company called Kure (Kure Vapes dot com). Kure is an upscale full-service chain of vape shops whose website urges customers to, "Belly up to our Juice Bar and test any one of our KURE On Tap vape juice blends." While $15,000 worth of stock is probably not a deal-breaker, it's clearly a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, leading me to wonder about the rest of his agenda. Wonder no more. As is the mandate of his organization, he is rightly concerned about what America's food supply. Before talking about our nation's outrageous OBESITY STATS, he said.....

"Improvements in diet and nutrition offer us one of our greatest opportunities to have a profound and generational impact on human health. And FDA has a critical role to play to help make this happen. Improving the nutrition and diet of Americans would be another transformative effort toward reducing the burden of many chronic diseases, ranging from diabetes to cancer to heart disease. The public health gains of such efforts would almost certainly dwarf any single medical innovation or intervention we could discover."

Although I couldn't have said it better (except for the part about government's role in making this happen), the question now becomes how. How in the world does Dr. Gottlieb plan on accomplishing this feat, and what sort of dietary advice is he dishing? For starters he stated that, "Clear, science-based information is a central pillar to the work we do at the agency. It’s also a driving factor in better consumer choices." While this would certainly be true under normal circumstances, in the same way that Big Pharma cannot be trusted, neither can Big Food / Big Ag. In other words, the term "EVIDENCE-BASED" frequently anything but --- particularly once you see how much of the so-called (ahem) 'evidence' is bought and paid for (and jimmied) in an array of unique and interesting methods (HERE are some examples).

After saying that "there shouldn’t be one set of food opportunities for the affluent, and another for lower-income and working class families," he went on to talk about the miracle that is American agriculture. Unfortunately, this idea of everyone having "one set of food opportunities" is part of what has put our nation in the health conundrum it's currently in (HERE). We have 1 in 7 citizens on SNAP (the program formerly known as 'Food Stamps'); a program with zero stipulations put on what recipients can put in their collective shopping carts (HERE). SODA? Sure? Chips and other SNACK FOODS? No problem. CANDY? Check. Heat-and-serve HIGHLY PROCESSED JUNK? You get the drift. But it doesn't end here.

Dr. G went on to discuss ways that the FDA is going to step in and save the day. One was by creating better "Nutrition Facts Labels." Another had to do with the claims made by companies, his pet peeve obviously being use of the word "healthy." And this, folks, is where he started revving up the engines of his time machine. Gottleib stated that, "we’re also interested in exploring claims for [healthy] products that offer food groups for which American diets typically fall short of recommendations. Examples include whole grains, low-fat dairy, fruits and vegetables and healthy oils." Firstly, whether processed or not (see failed food pyramid or the currently promoted DASH DIET), Americans are consuming WAY TOO MANY GRAINS. Secondly, are we to believe that "low fat" anything is healthy? Thirdly, the day I trust government bureaucrats to tell me which oils and fats are safe and healthy (HERE or HERE) is the day I...... And lastly, suggesting that we increase our vegetable consumption is fantastic; but what this tends to mean to the average target of FDA recommendations is MORE CORN (a grain, not a vegetable). Just remember, in far too many cases, doctors and nutritional advice are like oil and water (HERE).

The reality is that these ideas will be hijacked by industry just as previous year's recommendations were hijacked. It's a big reason our nation's healthcare trajectory is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY UNSUSTAINABLE. If you are looking to get healthy and stay that way, my best advice is to take anything the government says WITH A GRAIN OF SALT (literally). In fact; there are far better ways to eat than the fore-mentioned DASH diet. Want to get an idea of what I typically recommend? HERE is my clinic's E-checklist (the top two rows contain the nutritional information). As I've shown you in the past (HERE), trust the FDA at your own peril.

Just two short weeks ago, a group of elite university researchers from around the world (France, Netherlands, Australia, United States) put together a scientific paper for the journal Science of Food called Food for Thought: How Nutrition Impacts Cognition and Emotion. While little of this 'Literature Review' is what I would call groundbreaking, it's beautiful seeing the whole enchilada laid out in a neat, orderly, thoughtful, and scientific fashion. Since we've been hearing 'you are what you eat' since our earliest days in grade school, my short review of their review will hopefully give you a taste of just how true this concept really is --- that your brain is, for better or worse, affected by the foods you eat.

Defined as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) over thirty (you can calculate your BMI HERE), the authors start out by letting readers know that one third of American adults fit the clinical definition of "obese". They also revealed that the rest of the world is catching up (38% of adults and 18% of children and adolescents worldwide are classified as either overweight or obese). Not surprisingly, "Cognitive and emotional dysfunctions are increasing" along with. When I was a kid, TYPE III DIABETES (aka Alzheimer's) was rare. Today it seems like everyone knows / loves someone with PARKINSON'S, ANXIETY / DEPRESSION, ADD / ADHD, or generalized "Brain Fog," characterized by an inability to think or make sensible decisions. And that's just for starters; the list is truly endless.

Next, the authors pulled the rug out from under one of the most common beliefs widely touted by the medical community today --- that much of, maybe even most of, the health problems that the average person deals with today are the result of bad genetics. As I have shown you time and time again on my site, in the case of the vast majority of disease processes, genetics actually plays second fiddle to something known as epigenetics. Listen between the lines as these authors explain. "Next to our genetic makeup, the interplay between specific environmental challenges occurring during well-defined developmental periods seems to play an important role." What are these "environmental challenges"? They could be any number of things, including poor nutrition (either mother or baby). Or they could be be exposure to toxic chemicals / elements such as GLYPHOSATE or ALUMINUM. Or they could be exposure to the STRESS of a violent or harsh upbringing. It's another list that's truly endless.

Quick example of epigenetics. My house may have the best lighting system ever devised, but unless I actually flip the switch when I walk in the door after dark, the lights will not express themselves. In similar fashion, even though you may carry the genes for any number of nasty diseases, including those mentioned earlier; unless those genes are actually turned on, they won't express themselves either. This phenomenon is known as EPIGENETICS and is (or at least should be) concerned not so much with whether you have this gene or that gene, but about triggers. What are the most common triggers? For the most part, the things that trigger "bad" genes are bad habits or exposure to "bad" things. A great example is sugar (see OTTO WARBURG'S Nobel Prize winning work from 1931 on sugar and cancer). And case you missed Dr. Seyfried's amazing video on this topic, HERE it is. To oversimplify it, bad habits turn on bad genes, leading to ill health.

The very next sentence provides the theme of this paper by revealing that "brain dysfunction most often co-occurs with metabolic disorders (e.g., obesity) and/or poor dietary habits." While I certainly don't want to discount what happened to you in you formative years (you'll see this in a moment), the fact that epigenetics trumps genetics should leave you feeling empowered. In other words, despite the message conveyed by deceptive and ever-so-clever advertising campaigns (VYTORIN COMMERCIALS a few years back come immediately to mind --- it's another crappy STATIN DRUG otherwise known as Ezetimibe / Simvastatin), in most cases your fate and health are much more up to you and your conscious decisions than your genetic makeup. The next thing mentioned is that our collective diets lack many nutritional components, including antioxidants (we can change diets and habits!). If you want to see some really cool research on a major source of antioxidant power that you might want to start tapping into, make sure to take a look at YESTERDAY'S POST.

Honestly, this entire study can be broken down to a single paragraph.....

"Overeating, obesity, acute high-fat diet consumption, poor early-life diet or early life adversity can produce an inflammatory response in peripheral immune cells and centrally as well as having impact upon the blood–brain interface and circulating factors that regulate satiety. Peripheral pro-inflammatory molecules (cytokines, chemokines, danger signals, fatty acids) can signal the immune cells of the brain (most likely microglia) via blood-borne, humoral, and/or lymphatic routes. These signals can either sensitize or activate microglia leading to de novo production of pro-inflammatory molecules such as interleukin-1beta (IL1β), IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) within brain structures that are known to mediate cognition (hippocampus) and emotion (hypothalamus, amygdala, prefrontal cortex and others). Amplified inflammation in these regions impairs proper functioning leading to memory impairments and/or depressive-like behaviors. Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), polyphenolics, and a positive early life environment (appropriate nutrition and absence of significant stress or adversity) can prevent these negative outcomes by regulating peripheral and central immune cell activity."

Poor dietary choices such as overeating, etc, etc etc (we'll talk about "acute high-fat diet consumption" in a moment*), lead to inflammation. INFLAMMATION is the collective name given to a group of immune system molecules that are at the root of virtually every health problem you can name (not to mention most of those you can't), including OBESITY. Among other things, inflammation opens up the body's numerous barrier systems (including the BBB or Blood Brain Barrier), causing something I refer to as "THE LEAKIES". Leaking epithelial barriers cause untold numbers of problems wherever they are found. One of the problems these authors mention specifically is the part of your brain is affected so that you can never feel full after eating (satiety is the medical word for this). The second they mention is that it ignites or "activates" your microglia.

MICROGLIAL ACTIVATION is serious stuff because it leads to so many potentially difficult-treat-problems (problems that are usually impossible to treat with the standard DRUG THERAPIES that are ubiquitous to our society). What does activation of the microglia do to people neurologically? As they mention, it affects memory, cognition, causes depression, screws up your moods & emotions, and generally fouls up your BRAIN. And although they did not delve into it here, it is frequently a chief component of CHRONIC PAIN, including CENTRAL SENSITIZATION, which can itself be associated with SYSTEMICALLY INFLAMED CONNECTIVE TISSUES --- something commonly seen in any doctor's office.

And although this phenomenon happens frequently in the adult population, it is not confined to adults. "Neuroinflammatory processes, including the role of microglia, can clearly be impacted by neonatal diet and represent at least one contributing mechanism for how cognitive function is affected. Neuroinflammation and microglia can also be impacted by other early life events and play a significant role in how stress during development alters long-term physiology." Stop for a moment and ponder something. This statement should make people pause and contemplate the neuroinflammation and microglial activation that's being PURPOSEFULLY INDUCED over and over and over again by vaccinations (including these FOUL BEASTS).

*A quick note on high fat diets. If people are doing high fat diets the right way (HERE or HERE), this manner of eating (aka ketogenic diets) has actually been shown to be neuro-protective as well as protective against cellular proliferation (CANCER). This is not my opinion but the opinion of a large and growing number of researchers. I would contend that our differences of opinion on this matter, as I have shown you many times previously, is due to the huge metabolic difference in fats (HERE). If you fail to consume healthy fats, everything mentioned is true.

Want to know why it's so darn important to BREAST FEED your baby and then feed feed them a diet based on WHOLE FOODS in their developing years? Easy. If you fail in this, you increase the odds of future and permanent neurological deficits and dysfunctions. Furthermore, just because you are breastfeeding junior; if you are sitting around eating Cheetos and Cheesecake all day yourself, you are sabotaging your good intentions. "Early life stress-induced alterations in the nutritional composition of the dam’s [mother's] milk.... could have lasting consequences for brain structure and function." Be aware that a form of stress that scientists have been talking about for decades is "dietary stress". Among other things I suggest to combat this is getting plenty of omega three fatty acids. Speaking of Omega 3's, listen to this....

"Abnormal omega-3 levels have been extensively described in both the peripheral tissues and in the brain of patients with mood disorders or cognitive decline, leading to a large number of random controlled trials aiming at evaluating the effectiveness of long chain omega-3 dietary supplementation on mood and cognitive disorders."

This statement raises an interesting question. Why is the research all over the place as far as supplements (not just Omega-3's) are concerned? We know that "abnormal omega-3 levels" are a major factor in ill health (study after study shows that the average American is consuming about 1/30th the recommended amount), yet some studies show positive results with supplementation, while others conclude it's a waste of time and money. My opinion is that it boils down to two issues. The first is that whether talking about nutrition or medications, MONOTHERAPIES are frequently not very helpful in isolation. Which brings us right into the second point; supplements are just that --- a "supplement" to a balanced diet based on WHOLE FOODS.

Unfortunately, my experience is that the majority of people don't really want to change their diets (at least don't want to change them too much). Instead, they continue to hope that the supplements they are taking will solve their problems. In other words they are using NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS in the exact same way that the medical community is using drugs; trying to cover symptoms without really making the lifestyle changes required to change their physiology (HERE). For the record, GRASS-FED BEEF as well as OZARK DEER (raised on acorns instead of GRAIN) are fantastic sources of Omega-3's. Supplementing with FISH OIL, while potentially good, can be also potentially harmful (click the link to see why).

The authors go on to talk about FRUITS AND VEGETABLES as well as the effects of diet on the aging process. "Aging and metabolic dysregulation are both associated with numerous cognitive and motor deficits on tasks that require fine motor control, balance, short-term and long-term memory, or executive function. Studies in both humans and animal models have demonstrated that oxidative stress and inflammation, as well as impaired insulin resistance, are common features in cardio-metabolic and vascular disease, obesity, and age-related declines in cognitive and motor function." OXIDATIVE STRESS, INSULIN RESISTANCE, CARDIOMETABOLIC SYNDROME, DIABETES, and the rest of this mess are largely the result of LIVING THE HIGH CARB LIFESTYLE. And while it is certainly possible to make changes as you get older, by the very nature of things, these changes become more difficult, which is why waiting to change until you have visible symptoms is a fool's game that leaves you vulnerable to a host of nasties that can destroy your life in incredibly unpleasant ways. In other words, it's easier to stay healthy than to get sick and then try to play catch up.

Overall, I felt this was a valuable review, and would recommend you take 15 minutes or so to read it. It is exciting to see real scientists go from recommending old worn out drug therapies for everything, to suggesting dietary and lifestyle changes that can positively affect every cell, organ, and tissue in your body, ultimately leading to various degrees of better physical and (as proved by this paper) mental health.

It's problematic that in this arena, the practicing medical community has lagged two to three decades behind current peer-review (HERE). Even though things continue to improve, don't wait on your doctor to start making changes. Dr. Ken Sharlin, a neurologist and specialist in Functional Medicine in the Springfield area agrees (HERE). Your health is up to you, and every day you fail to make the necessary changes, you increase your chances of ending up with a chronic inflammatory degenerative disease (HERE). Or maybe an autoimmune disease (HERE). Or maybe you'll become one of the 100 million Americans living in chronic pain (HERE). Fortunately for most of you, it doesn't have to be that way.

Although I would never tell you to do something rash like stop taking your medications, my desire is that you created a plan of change so that your doctor can one day tell you that you no longer need your medications (HERE). And while some of you might require some sort of SPECIAL TESTING or continued medical intervention, many of you --- probably the majority of you --- can use some of the totally and 100% free information in THIS POST to start taking you life back. While it's not easy (nothing good in life ever is), the longer you stick with it, the easier it will get. Since there's no time like the present, give yourself an early CHRISTMAS PRESENT and get started today!

ORGANIC FOOD -VS- NON-ORGANIC FOODIS THERE A DIFFERENCE?

I've heard many people say that their doctor told them that organic food isn't worth it. My question would be, 'isn't worth it in what way?' How do we measure whether organic food is "worth it" or not? A six week old study from the journal Environmental Health (Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review) by a collaborative team of researchers from universities in the US (Harvard), Poland, Denmark, and Sweden attempted to answer this question.

The first thing I want to mention about this study is that it's well-bibbed --- over 270 sources. Secondly, the credentials of the researchers are impeccable, with no listed FINANCIAL COI. And thirdly.... Well, just let me show you. Today we are going to take just a few minutes to review this study and see whether organic foods really do make a difference, or whether they are a waste of time, energy, and money.

The first thing that these authors did was use current statistics to show that there is a market for organic food. They did this by revealing just how much more land is being farmed organically than even five years ago. The total amount of land being farmed organically around the world is almost 200,000 square miles. While this certainly seems like a lot, according to Wikipedia, the number of square miles of land used to raise food on worldwide is about 18,963,881 square miles. This means that even though there are many nations (mostly in Europe) where organic farming accounts for 10% or more of the total, organic farming makes up about 1% of all farm land worldwide, whether said land is being used to raise crops or animals.

For the record, there is a significant amount of land and likewise a huge number of animals (as well as animal products --- EGGS, MILK, MEAT) that are for all intents and purposes "organic," but because of the difficulty and cost of having their land "certified" by governmental regulatory agencies, are not 'officially' labeled as such.

The authors also reported that it was difficult to always tell whether or not those that ate organic were healthy because they ate organic, or ate organic because they were health-conscious. In other words, those who ate organic tended to also eat more fruits and vegetables and consume less JUNK FOOD. These individuals are also more likely to exercise and less likely to smoke. So, in the same way we have confounders in many medical studies (diseases, obesity, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, etc) we similarly have confounders in organic farming and health studies as well --- it's just that they are on the other end of the health spectrum.

The authors did say, however, that as far as CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DEGENERATIVE DISEASES are concerned, studies have shown that consumers who eat more organic food tend to have less HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, TYPE II DIABETES, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, and CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE. But as weird as it may seem they also had a higher incidence of CANCER. The authors speculated that this is likely due to many individuals shifting over to organic food after receiving a cancer diagnosis. Also, a couple of studies were done where extracts from organically-raised and conventionally-raised foods were tested on cancer cells, with the organic extracts "showing promise" as far as inhibiting or slowing down proliferation.

As far as pesticides / herbicides are concerned, the organically-raised produce provided far less exposure. Furthermore, there were a wide range of natural pest protection mentioned. One thing I should mention here is that in many studies, organic foods were actually associated with higher excretion rates of toxicity (higher urine levels), probably because the healthier produce was helping the body shed some of its chemical burden (BIOTRANSFORMATION).

The study went on to talk about many of the diseases that were associated with the chemicals used in conventional farming (I've talked about GLYPHOSATE in the past). However, there was not enough research for the authors to conclusively say that conventional farming was the cause of numerous illnesses and diseases (mostly neurological and metabolic). The authors did say, however, that "Epidemiological studies have reported adverse effects of certain pesticides on children’s cognitive development at current levels of exposure."

One of the areas that these authors spent significant time on was the effects of animal ANTIBIOTIC EXPOSUREon humans --- an area where there is a lot of research. And although there was plenty of talk about antibiotic resistance ("It appears essential that use of antibiotics in animal production decreases strongly or completely ceases in order to decrease the risk of entering a post-antibiotic era."), there was no discussion of antibiotic affects on GUT HEALTH or MICROBIOME.

The authors concluded by saying, "Organic food production has several documented and potential benefits for human health, and wider application of these production methods also in conventional agriculture, e.g., in integrated pest management, would therefore most likely benefit human health." While I would certainly agree, I can also assure you that things will change slowly. Firstly, this is because change is hard for all of us. Most farmers who have always done things "conventionally" are understandably nervous about the potential of losing a lot of money, or even their farms. Secondly, in most cases organic farming is more labor intensive. For example, spreading manure on fields can take significantly more time and man hours than spreading synthetics. Speaking of synthetics.....

If you are interested in seeing why I believe that whole, organically-raised foods are both different and better, make sure to take a look at THIS and THIS. And for those of you struggling with chronic illness, including AUTOIMMUNITY or CHRONIC PAIN, it might behoove you to take a quick peek at this short post as well (HERE). And while today's study was not a 475 foot walk-off grand slam in the bottom of the ninth, it was definitely an extra-base hit, extending the inning so that more research will be done in the future. But lest you forget, EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH has shown us that BIG PHARMA and BIG AGRICULTURE will fight studies like this every step of the way --- especially as more and more producers go organic. Oh; and for you who say that you cannot afford to eat healthy, THIS POST is for you.

Jerome Groopman writes for the New Yorker. He also happens to, "hold the Dina and Raphael Recanati Chair of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School and is the chief of experimental medicine at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.... and has published more than a hundred and eighty research articles. His research has focused on the basic mechanisms of cancer and AIDS." In other words, he's way smarter than you or I will ever hope to be. I bring this up to discuss his recent article Is Fat Killing You or is Sugar? What We Do and Don't Know About Dietary Science.

If there's one thing that we know for sure about the field of nutrition, it's that there are any number of camps that they often disagree with each other --- often times radically. For instance, there are still those out there like Pritikin, Ornish, McDougal, Furhman, and others promoting a high carb / high starch diet, with limited or no animal-based foods. Much of Groopman's article is aimed at people in the other camp --- the camp that says a GRAIN-BASED DIET that's heavy in sugars (or at least heavy in high glycemic-index / glycemic-load starches) is the root of our epidemic of PRE-DIABETES, DIABETES, and OBESITY. Although I am not going to deal with the whole article, I am going to touch on some high points.

We see right away that Dr. Groopman is interested in this topic because it hits close to home. His family heard the message of DR. ANCEL KEYS in the "early ninteen-sixties," buying in to the 'WAR ON FAT' and radically changing their diets, converting to the low fat lifestyle (the 'FAT FREE' lifestyle would come later, in the late 1980's). Despite his father's best and strictest efforts, he died of a heart attack in his mid fifties. After invoking the seemingly unlimited powers of GENETICS concerning his personal cholesterol levels, Groopman tied these events together by extolling the virtues of STATINS. The following is the first of the three points I want to make about Groopman's article.

DIABETES IS NOT A SUGAR PROBLEM: Groopman makes the statement, "Though there’s a clear correlation between diabetes and obesity, no one has yet discovered a causal link." Here's the reason --- one that I have talked about on more than one occasion. Diabetes is not really a "sugar" problem. Sure, you'll be labeled as having Diabetes if your fasting blood sugar goes over 125, but this doesn't really explain Diabetes. Even though SUGAR AND JUNK CARBS are in themselves extremely inflammatory (HERE), they are not the only driver of inflammation out there --- they are merely the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. The bottom line is that Diabetes is an inflammatory problem much more than it is a sugar problem (HERE). Once you see how many crazy, weird things can potentially drive SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION, you can start to see why this issue can become confusing --- especially when it (Diabetes or Insulin Resistance) is found in people of NORMAL WEIGHT. Although it certainly won't solve all these drivers, the PALEO DIET is beautiful because it cuts out the most potentially inflammatory foods. While a huge step up from the SAD (Standard American Diet), the Mediterranean Diet that Dr. Groopman keeps going back to, will adversely affect those who are gluten or FODMAP sensitive --- at least when done here in America, using AMERICAN GRAINS. This is why I believe that everyone needs to do an ELIMINATION DIET to figure out what these inflammatory foods may be, as they are different for different people.

CALORIES ARE NOT ALL EQUAL: Groopman makes a statement that I quite agree with. "Research has shown that calories eaten are only part of what determines weight. Our metabolism reflects an interplay of things like genes, hormones, and the bacteria that populate the gut, so how much energy we absorb from what we eat varies from person to person." As far as weight gain is concerned, the number of calories consumed is not nearly as important as the type of calories consumed. If people don't understand the effect that said calories have on their ENDOCRINE SYSTEM and GUT (including one's MICROBIOME), it will be tough to conquer the battle of the bulge. For instance, sugars and most grains --- especially CORN and GLUTEN-CONTAINING GRAINS --- increase the body's insulin levels, often dramatically (HERE). This is why if people will eat foods that don't hype their endocrine system (i.e. GOOD FATS and PROTEIN); as long as they have the right bacteria in their Gut (HERE), they can eat just about all they want and get downright skinny in the process. This is largely how a KETOGENIC DIET works as well as being why cardiologist Robert Atkins was so ahead of his time. It's also why someone can consume mass quantities of good fats, losing weight and normalizing their blood work in the process. Although Groopman talks about Taubes' book The Case Against Sugar at length in this article, the book that best deals with the concept specifically touted by this bullet is Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories. I wrote about the various ways sugar affects the body (including Alzhiemer's Disease and PCOS) just a few weeks ago (HERE). Shifting to the next bullet, take a look at the cancer-quote below.

"...cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, molecules that have been shown to directly transform normal cells into malignant ones by disrupting their DNA. There’s no equivalent when it comes to sugar. Taubes surmises a causal link by citing findings that cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and absorb more of it than other cells. But this proves nothing: malignant cells consume in abundance not only carbohydrates like glucose and fructose but other nutrients, like vitamins. To imagine that, just because cancer cells like glucose, elevated levels of it might prompt healthy cells to become cancerous is to take a vast, unsubstantiated leap."

SUGAR FEEDS CANCER; OR DOES IT? When it comes to fighting off INFECTIOUS ILLNESS or Cancer, fortunately we were created with an amazing immune system (HERE and HERE). This is because we all have mutations occurring all the time. And contrary to what EVOLUTIONISTS would have you believe, said mutations do not lead to the advancement of the species. In the vast majority of cases, they lead to a nasty array of diseases based on genetic foul up, including Cancer (HERE). Thus, we don't need sugar to start or create the Cancer --- there are plenty of other things we are exposed to all day / every day that can do that. All we need is for THE SUGAR that's already present, is to feed it --- sort of like taking a very small fire and dumping gasoline on it. What do we know about the affinity of Cancer for sugar? Instead of me answering that question, I'll let the Nobel Prize winner from 1931, Dr. Otto Warburg, do it for me (HERE). Suffice it to say, Pet Scans (CT SCANS used for detecting cancer) work because of this principle.

Dr. Groopman's article makes a lot of good points and shows that he is committed to the "Best Evidence" as found in peer-review. While I am a huge fan of peer-review (my site literally discusses thousands of studies), I also am aware of just how financially conflicted so much of the biomedical research can be --- particularly when it comes to Big Pharma (HERE). My point here, is not to sell you something (i.e. NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS). My point is to give you some information that might just help you help yourself. If you are struggling with chronic conditions of various sorts, THIS POST might be right up your alley.

STUDY SHOWS AVERAGE AMERICAN DIET LEADS TO CHRONIC PAIN

"These results highlight the negative effects of poor diet quality with respect to recovery from hypersensitivity and susceptibility to chronic pain. A complete understanding of the impact of diet can aid in treatment and recovery dynamics in human clinical patients." The conclusions of the study being discussed today.

A study published in the current issue of the Journal of Pain --- the official journal of the American Pain Society (Total Western Diet Alters Mechanical and Thermal Sensitivity and Prolongs Hypersensitivity Following Complete Freund's Adjuvant in Mice) --- has some interesting things to say about the relationship between a crappy diet and Chronic Pain.

After watching the amazing movie, Woodlawn, last evening with my family (a football movie that took place early 1970's Birmingham), I immediately picked up on the fact that this study came out of the University of Alabama, Birmingham (UAB). Dr. Robert Sorge, a pain researcher in the IMPACT Lab (Immune Modulation of Pain and Addiction for Comprehensive Therapeutics), has a special emphasis in both CHRONIC PAIN and ADDICTION. In this study, Sorge's team divided mice into two groups --- one consuming a "healthy" diet (the control), and the other consuming something called a Total Western Diet (the experimental group) --- think JUNK FOOD here.

After 13 weeks, "Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging revealed a significant increase in fat mass with a concomitant decrease in lean mass in the TWD-fed mice. In addition, there were significant increases in levels of serum leptin [a marker for INSULIN RESISITANCE & DIABETES] and inflammatory cytokines [learn more about inflammatory cytokines HERE]." None of this was surprising. But this wasn't the end of the study --- it is here that the real research began.

Both groups of mice were then injected with something called Freund's Adjuvant --- a solution of inactivated Mycobacterium Tuberculosis emulsified in mineral oil (Adjuvants make vaccines work "better" by causing increased immune system responses --- the nearly-universal vaccine adjuvant is ALUMINUM). The purpose of this solution is to create a heightened immune system response (remember that INFLAMMATION is a huge part of said response), thus leading to pain. A popular online encyclopedia described Freund's Adjuvant thusly.

"Its use in humans is forbidden by regulatory authorities, due to its toxicity. Even for animal research there are currently guidelines associated with its use, due to its painful reaction and potential for tissue damage. Intradermal injections may cause skin ulceration and necrosis. Intramuscular injections may lead to temporary or permanent muscle lesion, and intravenous injections may produce pulmonary lipid embolism."

If you want to understand some of these terms a bit better (particularly HYPERSENSITIVITY), I suggest you read my very short post on THE THREE TYPES OF PAIN. It's not really news that the SAD (Standard American Diet) or as these authors called it, the Total Western Diet, is bad news. We know that an inflammatory diet leads to health problems (even though mainstream medicine ACTUALLY RIDICULES PEOPLE FOR EATING TO AVOID INFLAMMATION). However, this study showed how a cruddy diet led to both Obesity and Chronic Pain, "Obesity and chronic pain are often comorbid and their rates are increasing." Why? Both issues, obesity and chronic pain are considered to be "inflammatory" issues.

The pain journal Practical Pain Management weighed in by asking DR. DAVID SEAMAN, a chiropractor and functional neurologist as well as a Professor of Clinical Sciences at National University's Florida branch, about this relationship. An article by Rosemary Black calledUnhealthy Western Diet May be Linked to Pain quoted Dr. Seaman as saying (I am cherry-picking here)....

"A poor diet is one that is restricted in vegetation and heavily burdened by refined sugars, flours, and omega-6 oils that enhance inflammatory chemistry. Pain is the result of inflammation, and inflammation occurs when a person consumes refined sugars, refined flour, and omega-6 oils. (Omega-6 oils come primarily from corn oil, soybean oil, safflower and sunfllower oil. Corn oil is found in everything from farm-raised fish to chickens to salad oil.) This in turn can lead to pain for some and heart attacks in someone else."

Although Practical Pain Management has been progressively coming around the these conclusions for several years, why doesn't the average treating physician grasp the conclusions of this study ---- that "A complete understanding of the impact of diet can aid in treatment and recovery dynamics in human clinical patients."? In other words, why is there such a CHASM between the medical research community and treating physicians? Mostly it's due to MONEY. And a LACK OF CONCERN for their patients (how could you come to any other conclusion?). And sometimes a LACK OF TIME. What does this mean to you --- the suffering patient? It means that if you are not willing to step outside of the box, you will continue to be saturated with "THE BIG FIVE". The thing that probably ticks me off the most is that the American Heart Association recently took a huge step backwards with this point when they issued their new guidelines on dietary fat (HERE).

WHOLE FOOD NUTRITION -vs- SYNTHETIC NUTRITIONIS THERE A DIFFERENCE?

Vhanepfu

Sam Effron

"Vitamins and herbal supplements command a significant chunk of floor space. The pills, capsules, and powders make up 5 percent of all grocery sales in the United States. All told, Americans will spend $21 billion on vitamins and herbal supplements in 2015. If protein powders are included, supplements are as big a market as all organic foods combined." From Cameron Scott's March 26, 2015 article in Business Insider (Americans are Wasting Billions of Dollars Every Year on Health Supplements that Don't Even Work)

"Americans have been taking multivitamin/mineral (MVM) supplements since the early 1940s, when the first such products became available. MVMs are still popular dietary supplements and, according to estimates, more than one-third of all Americans take these supplements. Sales of all dietary supplements in the United States totaled an estimated $36.7 billion in 2014."From our government's National Institute of Health (Vitamin and Mineral Supplements)

When it comes to Westernized nations, the United States ranks at the very bottom of the barrel as far as overall health is concerned. This despite the fact that the National Institutes of Health tells us that at less than 5% of the world's population, we are consuming approximately three quarters of the planet's drugs (HERE). Yet we are spending almost forty billion dollars annually on nutritional supplements. Is there a disconnect here? Are these vast amounts of supplements doing any good? In many (some would argue most) cases it's debatable.

Virtually no one would argue that in our pedal-to-the-metal chemically polluted society, none of us could benefit from better nutrition. For many of us, that nutritional help comes in the form of supplements -- often in the absence of a healthy diet. On top of this, the prevailing attitude with vitamins seems to be that if a little is good, a lot must surely be better. And a whole heck of a lot should be even better yet. As is true in most areas of life, when it comes to nutrition, this is rarely true. It's certainly not accurate when it comes to CALORIES, and it's not true when it comes to vitamins either. I have talked previously about synthetic B-vitamins (some of which are derived from coal tar and sewer sludge) and their whole-food counterparts (HERE). The same principle holds true for other vitamins as well (HERE are some vitamin side effects).

It is the chief reason that if you go to peer-review to look up the benefits of vitamins, the majority of the studies not only show no benefit, but actually show a negative benefit (Vitamin E is a great example). How can this be when we are bombarded by the message --- usually from those selling vitamins --- about how good they are? The result of this process is often people who have no real idea about nutrition (DOCTORS INCLUDED) taking way too much synthetic nutrition. In fact, it is my contention that many (again; maybe even most) people end up taking nutritional supplements in the same way they would take medications --- in the form of "MONOTHERAPIES". In other words, what vitamin should I be taking for (insert your disease dujour here)? These monotherapies, however, have some problems --- serious problems.

Although foods may be 'rich' in certain vitamins or minerals, the same vitamins and minerals are never found in high potency in said foods. This is because even though vitamins are certainly important --- even critical --- for our good health, we don't really need large amounts of them to do the job they are supposed to do. Vitamin supplements that contain megadoses (1,000 mg Vit C tablets are a great example --- the RDA is 60mg) are always synthetic crystalline fractions that are missing their synergists and co-factors (more explanation can be found HERE). An example of this would be the difference between raw local honey, and WHITE SUGAR (or HFCS). Yes, both can seriously jack your BLOOD GLUCOSE LEVELS, but few would argue that there is no difference between the two. Whole Food nutritional expert Dr. Janet Lang wrote this about synthetic nutrition back in 2003

"Crystalline means that a natural food has been treated with various chemicals, solvents, heat and distillations to reduce it down to one specific “pure” crystalline vitamin. In this process all the synergists, which are termed “impurities,” are destroyed. There is no longer anything natural in the action of crystalline “vitamins”—they should more accurately be termed drug. Synthetic means that a chemist attempted to reconstruct the exact structure of the crystalline molecule by chemically combining molecules from other sources. These sources are not living foods, but dead chemicals. For example, Vitamin B1 is made from a coal tar derivative, and d-alpha tocopherol (so-called Vitamin E) is a byproduct of materials used by the Eastman Kodak company to make film. However, it is not legally necessary to give the source from which the synthetic “vitamin” is derived. Synthetic “vitamins’ should more accurately be called drugs."

Part of the problem is that in order for your body to utilize these high doses of crystalline fractions, it must use up its stores of synergists. This is why people taking synthetics will often get a big initial "boost" in energy and symptomatic relief, followed by a steady decline in both. One of the biggest names in the "Whole Food" movement is Judith DeCava; a disciple of individuals like doctors WESTON PRICE,ROYAL LEE, FRANCIS POTTENGER and numerous others. Her book, The Real Truth About Vitamins and Antioxidants contains some excellent information on this topic.

"Natural food concentrates will show a much lower potency in milligrams or micrograms. This is frequently interpreted to mean they are less effective, not as powerful. Unfortunately, the `more is better’ philosophy is far from nutritional truth...... Vitamins are part of food complexes and must be associated with their natural synergists (co-workers) to be properly utilized and be a potent nutritional factor. In other words, a minute amount of a vitamin that is left intact in its whole food form is tremendously more functional, powerful, and effective nutritionally than a large amount of a chemically pure, vitamin fraction. Separating the group of compounds (in a vitamin complex) converts it from a physiological, biochemical, active micronutrient into a disabled, debilitated chemical of little or no value to living cells. The synergy is gone."

A recent study, 2013'sSynthetic or Food-Derived Vitamin C—Are They Equally Bioavailable? from the journal Nutrients, disagrees. Although the authors claim that the, "majority of animal studies have shown differences in the comparative bioavailability of synthetic versus food-derived vitamin C, or vitamin C in the presence of isolated bioflavonoids," they also say that the human experiments show the opposite (synthetic C is just as good as what comes from food). I am not really sure that "bioavailability" is the whole issue here.XENOHORMONESare tremendously bioavailable, but bioavailability is not the only issue in play in this debate. All of which brings me to the interesting pictures above.

When I was in Ethiopia for the adoption of OUR DAUGHTERS, I was extremely intrigued by the third-world's method of constructing ten or even twenty story buildings (HERE is an amazing example). Everything was propped up and scaffolded with sticks. The concrete was poured in small batches that were typically mixed by hand. Each floor was poured with re-bar sticking up in various places for support pillars, which were themselves formed up and poured. However, once finished and covered over with stucco (walls) and tile (floors), the average person would never know the difference in the finished product (see pics below). Not that there is not a difference mind you (recall the results of the Haitian earthquake five years ago), but it is not readily noticeable unless you know what you are looking for.

One of the many things that sold me on the concept of Whole Food Nutrition was the fact that even though the chemical structure of the synthetic vitamins was identical to the chemical structure of the natural whole food vitamin (think about Tinker-Toy like molecular models here), the crystalline structure of the same vitamins as seen under an electron microscope is very different (pics available in Dr. Robert Thiel's excellent article -- HERE) ---- something I learned about at one of Dr. Lang's many nutritional seminars I attended years ago.

In the same way it is simple for third world builders to largely disguise their work, it is fairly easy for unscrupulous manufactures to disguise the differences between synthetics and whole food. Much of this has to do with they language they use to describe their products. Because words like "natural" are not defined by the FDA, they can mean virtually anything. For instance, one could market a supplement made from grass, rocks, and purified manure, as 'all natural' because it is all natural (and maybe even "organic" to boot). CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS are notorious for being described with weasel words.

The takeaway is that you should be getting the vast majority of your nutrition from whole foods, and the rest from Whole Food Supplements (HERE). The only time you should be using synthetic fractions is for short periods of time to accomplish a very specific metabolic purpose. There is nothing wrong with using very high dose C or SUPER HIGH-POWERED ANTIOXIDANTS for a time. Just understand that they are essentially a drug, and like drugs, come with their own unique side effect profile.

"Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill asked nutrition educators from over 100 medical schools to describe the nutrition instruction offered to their students. While the researchers learned that almost all schools require exposure to nutrition, only about quarter offered the recommended 25 hours of instruction, a decrease from six years earlier, when almost 40 percent of all schools met the minimum recommendations. In addition, four schools offered nutrition optionally, and one school offered nothing at all. And while the majority of medical schools tended to intersperse lectures on nutrition in standard, required year-long or semester courses, like biochemistry or physiology, only a quarter of the schools managed to have a single course dedicated to the topic." Dr Pauline Chen from her weekly column (September 12-18, 2010) in the New York Times called Doctor & Patient.

"Does your doctor ever talk to you about nutrition or exercise? No? You're not alone. Polling shows that fewer than one-eighth of visits to physicians include any nutrition counseling and fewer than 25 percent of physicians believe they have sufficient training to talk to patients about diet or physical activity. And the number of hours devoted to teaching future physicans about nutrition in medical school has actually declined recently, from 22.3 in 2004 to 19.6 in 2009. (The National Academy of Sciences says it should be 25 to 30 hours.)" Lennie Bernstein writing for the June 23, 2014 issue of the Washington Post (Your Doctor Says he Doesn’t Know Enough About Nutrition or Exercise)

This post is the result of a statement I made at the end of my LAST POST that may or may not be true about the medical treatment of ADHD with nutrition. "Honestly, if you follow this step, you will solve 90% of these cases." Was this statistic (I can't call it a statistic because I pulled it out of my hat) true or accurate? In a back-and-forth with a reader on FACEBOOK, it was suggested to me that it was not. Today we are going to take a look at the assertion made in my response --- that the average practicing physician is so locked in to the idea of "better living through chemistry," that we can never really know if that number is 90% or 9% because of the VERY NATURE OF THE WAY THAT MEDICINE IS PRACTICED here in the US ---- which does not even begin to touch on the way that MEDICAL RESEARCH is being done.

A year and a half ago I wrote a post called, "NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS: ARE THEY EFFECTIVE?" For the most part they are not, and let me briefly explain why. I would contend that many people (maybe even the majority of the people) who take supplements are going about their supplementation the wrong way. People typically go to their (insert one of these here --- doctor, chiro, best friend, health food store proprietor, computer, other) and ask the question, "What do you have that can cure my..........?" Allow me to interpret what they are really saying in most cases.

You see, most people want to use supplements in the same way they use drugs (HERE). If you have symptom X, take drug Y. It is my opinion that supplements, at least for most people, are the easy way out. Just like it's much easier to drop a few bucks in the plate on Sunday than it is to follow Christ's commandment to LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELVES; it's easier to take a supplement (or supplements plural) without doing anything meaningful about our collectively crappy diets and lifestyles. I get it; real change is tough. MONOTHERAPIES are easy, whichever form (drugs or supplements) they come in. It's not that I think supplements (or drugs for that matter) are a bad thing, but without concurrent dietary and lifestyle changes, they are not typically of great value.

In order to do research that is considered "valid," you cannot change too many variables in your experiments. In fact, you shouldn't change more than one. What does this kind of research lead to? Very often we end up with studies that show how a specific nutrient (zinc, iron, Vitamin C, VITAMIN B, etc) has no effect on a disease process. When it comes to studying nutrition, contradictions in results from one study to the next are the rule as opposed to the exception, with studies on ADHD and nutrition being no different. I did, however, find some things that most researchers could agree on (thereare many more studies on this topic than I have time to deal with today)

The October, 2011 issue of Current Psychiatry Reports (Dietary and Nutritional Treatments for Attention-Deficit / HyperactivityDisorder: Current Research Support and Recommendations for Practitioners) said, "Two nutritional treatments appear worth general consideration: Recommended Daily Allowance/Reference Daily Intake multivitamin/mineral supplements as a pediatric health intervention not specific to ADHD and essential fatty acids, especially a mix of eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid [PGFO], and γ-linolenic acid as an ADHD-specific intervention." Some of this was echoed by this January's issue of the Nordic Journal of Psychiatry (Diet in the Treatment of ADHD in Children - A Systematic Review of the Literature) when they stated, "Elimination diets and fish oil supplementation seem to be the most promising dietary interventions for a reduction in ADHD symptoms in children." As you may already know, I am a huge fan of both PGFO and a good ELIMINATION DIET.

There were any number of studies linking ADHD to to a wide array of "EPIGENETIC FACTORS" such as sugar consumption, lack of breast feeding, and even tobacco and alcohol use. Although the research on diet was all over the place, there was a common theme I noticed when looking at studies pertaining to the cause of ADHD (officially, no one knows what causes it ---- "etiology unknown"). That common thread was that ADHD was linked to chemical exposure of the expecting mother. As a side note, there was also a trend in many of the studies to lump ADHD in with ASD (AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS). All of this leads me to theorize.....

It's no theory that chemicals are bad for you --- every doctor or researcher worth his salt realizes that there is a preponderance of evidence to this effect. However, I would argue that besides being ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, many of the chemicals we are exposed to each and every day are causing problems such as ASD and ADHD by fouling the MICROBIOME. It's not a stretch when you understand how substances like Aspartame create obesity and INSULIN RESISTANCE by fouling the Microbiome (HERE). But there is more to this issue of chemicals. Without even getting into the issue of MERCURY, look at what Vaccines do to Gut health (HERE). I took the following from an article I wrote ten years ago for the West Plains Quill (HERE).

"Dr. O'Leary (Ph.D / M.D.) is a professor of Molecular Medicine at the Institute of Molecular Medicine (Dublin Molecular Medicine Center) at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. He heads a large multi-discipline group researching the molecular effects of Cancer on numerous body systems. During his testimony before the United States Congress, he showed that 96% of Autistic children had measles virus in their Gut. Non-Autistic children had measles in their collective Guts less than 7% of the time."

I even found a recent study linking ADHD to a drug that is believed by most doctors to be so safe that it is commonly recommended for pregnant women --- ACETAMINOPHEN. Although not technically so, I tend to throw Acetomenophen (Tylenol / Paracetamol) in with the BIG FIVE. Remember Tylenol's old slogan; 'Tylenol; nothing safer'? It might not be as true as you once believed.

The conclusions of a September, 2014 study in the medical journal PLoS One(Associations Between Acetaminophen Use During Pregnancy and ADHD Symptoms Measured at Ages 7 and 11 Years) stated concluded that, "Acetaminophen was used by 49.8% of the study mothers during pregnancy. We found significantly higher total difficulty scores. Children of mothers who used acetaminophen during pregnancy were also at increased risk of ADHD at 7 and 11 years of age. These findings strengthen the contention that acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy increases the risk of ADHD-like behaviours. Our study also supports earlier claims that findings are specific to acetaminophen."

A few months prior to that, one of the many journals of the American Medical Association (JAMA Pediatrics) published a study calledAcetaminophen Use During Pregnancy, Behavioral Problems, and Hyperkinetic Disorders. This Danish study stated that, "More than half of all mothers reported acetaminophen use while pregnant. Children whose mothers used acetaminophen during pregnancy were at higher risk for receiving a hospital diagnosis of HKD [in the US we would probably call this ADD] or having ADHD-like behaviors at age 7 years. Stronger associations were observed with use in more than 1 trimester during pregnancy, and exposure response trends were found with increasing frequency of acetaminophen use during gestation for all outcomes. Results did not appear to be confounded by maternal inflammation, infection during pregnancy, the mother's mental health problems, or other potential confounders we evaluated. Maternal acetaminophen use during pregnancy is associated with a higher risk for HKDs and ADHD-like behaviors in children."

Another study published in 2014; this one from the July issue of the Canadian Family Physician (Acetaminophen in Pregnancy and Future Risk of ADHD in Offspring) revealed that, "There are few options for analgesia that are safe in all 3 trimesters. While acetaminophen has long been considered a safe treatment for headache, fever, and myalgia in pregnancy, the results from these two studies might cause us to reconsider the timing and amount of acetaminophen that we recommend." And even though the previous study specifically said they accounted for potential confounders, the authors of this study were loathe to admit to too much of a link due to, you guessed it, "confounding risks".

Despite telling us that, "no firm conclusion can be made on the relevance of these observations to humans" the August, 2015 issue of Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology (Use of Paracetamol During Pregnancy and Child Neurological Development) said in their abstract that even though, "Paracetamol (acetaminophen) remains the first line for the treatment of pain and fever in pregnancy, recently published epidemiological studies suggested a possible association between paracetamol exposure in utero and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder/hyperkinetic disorder (ADHD/HKD) or adverse development issues in children. In parallel, recent animal data showed that cognition and behaviour may be altered following exposure to therapeutic doses of paracetamol during early development. These effects may be mediated by interference of paracetamol with brain-derived neurotrophic factor, neurotransmitter systems (including serotonergic, dopaminergic, adrenergic, as well as the endogenous endocannabinoid systems), or cyclooxygenase-2. In the context of current knowledge, paracetamol is still to be considered safe in pregnancy and should remain the first-line treatment for pain and fever." The problem is that few people (doctors included) truly grasp the benefits of fever or have any idea what current guidelines are for treating it (HERE).

Something else that leads me to believe that many cases of ADHD are starting in the Gut has to do with the number of studies showing a link between Acetaminophen and ASTHMA. If you simply follow the link, you'll see that Gut-destroying ANTIBIOTICS are heavily associated with Asthma as well. What does any of this prove? According to the so called 'experts' nothing. However, taken together it leads me to warn pregnant women (or those TRYING TO BECOME PREGNANT) to get serious about what they are exposing themselves to as far as chemicals are concerned --- and that goes for drugs. To learn more about this particular topic, simply cruise over to PubMed and do a search on something like 'ADHD Microbiome' and see what comes up.

COULD DOCTORS DO MORE AS FAR AS EDUCATING THEIR PATIENTSABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUTRITION AND HEALTH?DARN STRAIGHT!

All the research in the world does nothing if it is not valid, or if it is not being followed --- something I discussed at length in my recent post on the Flu Vaccine (HERE). But the real issue is far bigger than this. What about the fact that doctors who have received virtually zero training in nutrition (HERE), continue to promote the ongoing WAR AGAINST RED MEAT, DIETARY FAT, SALT, EGGS, and CHOLESTEROL; all while telling us to eat more whole grains (HERE and HERE), EMBRACE VEGANISM, and TAKE MORE CALCIUM (something that people with ADHD need to be particularly aware of; HERE). In other words, few doctors have any idea about real (clinical) nutrition.

Although you might think that I am being mean, harsh, or overly critical; facts are facts. The average doctor knows next to nothing about the relationship between diet and disease --- or if they do, they certainly aren't doing anything about it as far as helping their patients is concerned. Almost eight years ago, Dr. Eileen Kennedy wrote in her From the Dean column for a newsletter put out by Tufts University (Nutrition Matters) that, "ironically, the same issues related to the importance of nutrition in medical practice discussed in our cover story were being highlighted decades ago, when I was in clinical practice as a registered dietitian. Now, however, it appears that nutrition may genuinely be seen as more integral to health care, both here and around the world." But in light of recent facts, how much weight do her words really carry almost a decade after she wrote them? Let's see

The March 26, 2012 issue of ISHN carried the headline, Doctors Need to Talk to Patients About Nutrition, Says AMA Head. In the article, Dr. Peter Carmel, AMA president was quoted as saying, "Americans are eating too little of the right things and too much of the wrong things -- and it's time for their doctors to do something about it. [He] urges his colleagues to begin regular conversations with their patients about healthy eating, and notes that chronic diseases claim 1.7 million lives a year and cost hundreds of billions of dollars." Although Carmel is probably on the low side in his estimates (HERE), you wouldn't have any idea of this from talking to the average doctor.

The September, 2014 issue of the American Journal of Medicine published a paper called A Deficiency of Nutrition Education in Medical Training. In this piece, the authors stated that, "A 2013 report on the state of US health identified dietary factors as the single most significant risk factor for disability and premature death. Despite the wealth of knowledge linking food and health, nutrition receives little attention in medical practice. The reason stems, in large part, from the severe deficiency of nutrition education at all levels of medical training to be described in this commentary. How has this knowledge affected medical education? A recent survey of medical schools revealed an average of fewer than 20 hours over 4 years devoted to nutrition education—most of which occurs in the early years when basic science courses are taught, typically with little apparent connection to human diets or common diseases. Nutrition education is in even shorter supply after medical school graduation. In the 34-page accreditation document for cardiology trainees, there is no mention of a requirement for nutrition education. And in a 35-page Accreditation Committee of Graduate Medical Education document for Internal Medicine residency training, from which many doctors go on to serve as primary care physicians, the word “nutrition” is absent."

Julie Deardorff, writing for the March 26, 2013 issue of the Chicago Tribune (Prescription for Nutrition) revealed that, "A 1985 landmark report on nutrition in medical schools by the National Academy of Sciences found that on average, future physicians received 21 hours of nutrition instruction over four years. Medical students need at least 25 hours to be adequately prepared to help patients, the report concluded. The number of hours devoted to nutrition education in medical schools is decreasing, leaving doctors unequipped to deal with common patient concerns about diet, studies have found. Even as rates of obesity and Type II diabetes soar, researchers report that doctors are spending less time than ever talking to patients about nutrition because they lack time, training and optimism that patients can make lifestyle changes. Insurance is also more likely to cover procedures than behavioral counseling. "There's tremendous ignorance about nutrition among physicians," added Dr. William Davis, a preventive cardiologist in Milwaukee. "It has never been part of the culture. On average, doctors receive 19 hours of total nutrition education in medical school; in 2004 the average was 22.3 hours, according to the study, conducted as part of the Nutrition in Medicine project at UNC. In 2009, 27 percent of the schools met the minimum standard of nutrition training, compared with 38 percent in 2004."

Don't think for one second that given a few hours, I could not have found a hundred more quotes just like these. Rest assured folks, there is one reason and one reason only that more is not being done by the average physician concerning nutrition ---- money. Few doctors are self-employed any more. They are essentially told by their employers (around here it's either Cox or Mercy) how they are going to deal with and treat their patients. And this doesn't even begin to take into account the MOUNTAIN OF PAPERWORK they are being buried under.

Plainly stated, the average doctor is exhausted, burned out, and rushed (HERE). And while few would admit it, it's not tough to see from today's post that they have become the pawns (witting or unwitting) of BIG PHARMA and the so-called EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. My suggestion to you if you are one of the millions of Americans debilitated by Chronic Inflammatory Degenerative Diseases (HERE)..... Realize that neither your doctor nor the medicine they prescribe is going to save you. It's time to start shouldering the burden and figuring out your own EXIT STRATEGY.

VITAMINSTHE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY(And Their Relationship to Dysbiosis & Gut Health)

"A primary cause for incorrect flora is often a diet that contains either too much sugar, fruit, fruit juice, alkaline water, or raw food such as salad, sweets, alcohol and even medical or over-the-counter drugs.In fact, taking too many vitamins, minerals or herbs can upset the digestion enough to unbalance the flora." -Dr. Lawrence Wilson (MD) from Your Intestinal Flora

"I don't believe that vitamins are essential ingredients of a healthy diet, but rather I contend that all of the necessary nutritional chemicals are produced by the microorganisms of the gut. I have previously discussed the gut flora (bacteria and fungi) as the source of most vitamins."-Dr. Art Ayers

"Dr. Oz and the general biomedical community promote the idea that vitamin supplements or in foods are needed or improve health. Of course, several research studies show that typical multivitamin supplements or the levels of vitamins in "enriched" foods do not provide improvements in health. Since gut flora produce all of the needed vitamins, this should be no surprise." Art Ayers from Vitamin C, Guinea Pigs, Limeys and Gut Worms

"Almost all multivitamins are from synthetics. The same goes for fortified foods. There’s a good reason for this. Synthetic vitamins are cheaper to make and usually more stable. This means they can last on shelves for months or years, be added to foods in high doses, and create small dense tablets packed with insane amounts of every type of vitamin. These vitamins are allowed to call themselves “natural” even when they are actually synthetic because scientists say the synthetics are virtually identical to the ones found in food. The way these compounds are made is not remotely similar to the metabolic processes that plants and animals use to create them. The finished product is also usually a compound not exactly the same form as any found in nature. These synthetic vitamins, according to a multitude of studies, are not as bioavailable, absorbable, or usable. These “virtually identical” vitamins are not what we find in natural foods, not recognizable to the body, hard on the kidneys, and can often be treated as toxins." From Natural vs. Synthetic Vitamins – What’s the Big Difference? at the sunwarrior website

What have I been telling folks for over two decades? Only that cheap vitamins are just that --- cheap vitamins. Remember the study that Johns Hopkins put out just two short years ago and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Enough Is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements)? This study (it was actually an editorial) concluded that, "Antioxidants, folic acid and B vitamins, and multivitamin and mineral supplements are ineffective for preventing mortality or morbidity due to major chronic diseases. Supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful. These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention." DR. ROYAL LEE and other giants in the "Whole Food Movement" (DR. WESTON PRICE, DR. FRANCIS POTTENGER, DR. JACK La LANE, etc) were saying similar things nearly a century ago.

Just a couple of days ago I saw where Mal Wart and several other similar retailers (GNC was in the mix as well) were busted for selling herbal supplements; the vast majority of which (79%) contained zero (that would be none) of the active herbal ingredients they claimed to contain on the label (echinacea, ginseng, St. John’s wort, garlic, ginkgo biloba, saw palmetto). And now this. Dr. Art Ayers latest blog post (Healthy Gut Microbiota Means: No Supplements, No Cleanses, No Drugs, No Processed Foods) twists our brain capacity a little bit more --- or maybe a lot more. In this post (as well as several previous ones) Ayers reveals that (the following points were cherry picked from his latest post).........

"A healthy, functional gut microbiota (bacteria and fungi) supplies all of the vitamins needed, daily multivitamins are not beneficial, vitamin deficiencies are a symptom of gut dysbiosis, spiking your diet with multivitamins may disrupt your microbiota, because vitamins are actually the chemical signals used for communications between bacteria in biofilms, bowel cleanses damage gut microbiota, chronic inflammation is a symptom of vitamin D deficiency, and most medicines have substantial antibiotic activity."

The more I learn about GUT HEALTH and DYSBIOSIS, the more I realize that solving it is the key to everything related to ill health. And the really good news in this post is that Ayers lets us know that our plight is not hopeless, "damaged gut microbiotas / immune systems can be fixed". We learn some things about this process of "fixing" that besides HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE, you can find in the "Gut Health" link above. Oh; and I almost forgot to mention something really important. After warning people about taking vitamins or partaking of foods with added vitamins ("fortified"), he makes an interesting statement. "Try some whole foods instead."

Is Ayers correct? Just remember that no matter what anyone tries to tell you, there is a dramatic difference between WHOLE FOOD NUTRITION and SYNTHETIC NUTRITION. It's not that people can't get drug-like effects from SYNTHETIC VITAMINS (ANTIOXIDANT EFFECTS from mega doses of Synthetic Vitamin C, for instance). However, using drugs has consequences --- even if those drugs happen to be "natural" vitamins ("natural" is almost always the code word for "synthetic"), usually in the form of MONOTHERAPIES. I would strongly recommend that you read Dr. Ayer's post on this matter.

The best thing about using Standard Process Nutritional Supplements in our office is that they are made from food --- plants and animals. The best thing about Standard Process is that when you get the Whole Food Vitamin / Mineral Complex, it doesn't take much. Less is more. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A little bit of Whole Vitamin Complex from nature is typically much better than a whole bunch of an isolated chemical fraction synthesized in a lab. None of this plays well in our if-a-little-is-good-a-lot-must-be-better society. Food or food-based supplements are where it's at, because anything that puts our body OUT OF PHYSIOLOGICAL HOMEOSTASIS essentially becomes a toxin. To see more on this phenomenon (as well as a free generic template to help you start getting your life back), HERE'S THE POST.

CAVITIES IN YOUR TEETHGENETIC OR NOT GENETIC?

Wellcome Trust

"The research found that there were statistically significant connections between the taste genes TAS2R38 and TAS1R2 and the risk of decay or protection against it. Although this is an early study, it could pave the way for some interesting breakthroughs. A large amount of a dentist’s time is spent dealing with dental caries. If dental health professionals can tell in advance who is most at risk, then more preventive care can be given to protect those patients. This could be as simple as dental nurses discussing suitable dietary plans and good dental hygiene routines with patients, to ensure those at most risk are caring for their teeth correctly."- Dr. Nigel Carter of Dental IQ (Genetics Responsible for Tooth Decay Risks?)

"Tooth decay is the result of an infection with certain types of bacteria that use sugars in food to make acids. Over time, these acids can make a cavity in the tooth." - Our Government's NIH (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research) from an article for kids called The Tooth Decay Process: How to Reverse It and Avoid a Cavity.

"By 1930, Price had shifted his interest to nutrition. In 1939, he published Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, detailing his global travels studying the diets and nutrition of various cultures. The book concludes that aspects of a modern Western diet (particularly flour, sugar, and modern processed vegetable fats) cause nutritional deficiencies that are a cause of many dental issues and health problems. The dental issues he observed include the proper development of the facial structure (to avoid overcrowding of the teeth) in addition to dental caries."- Wikipedia

If you will notice the three quotes above; each one is essentially describing a different theory of what causes tooth decay. The first is from a proponent of the genetic theory --- the theory that our genes control things like the acidity of our saliva, the strength of our enamel, or our ability to deal with the SUGAR we consume, leaving us potentially prone to decay. The next quote is standard fare --- what all of us have been taught since we were old enough to hold a toothbrush. The last quote concerns the theory that nutrition actually matters when it comes to dental health. The Wikipedia article cited above goes on to tell us how Dr. Price's, "﻿controversial dentistry and nutritional theories﻿," have been largely abandoned by those who would consider themselves "scientific". My best guess would be that all three theories are correct to some degree. But why am I bringing this up?

I recently had a conversation with a patient who had been to the dentist who discovered that he has several cavities. His dentist told him that this was simply a "genetic" issue, and that certain individuals were predisposed to this problem. Furthermore, there was not really anything to be done about it other than practice proper hygiene (brush / floss / FLUORIDE). After following WHOLE FOOD EXPERTS like DR. ROYAL LEE and Dr. Weston Price (both dentists) and FRANCIS POTTENGER (an MD), I have serious reason to doubt that this is the case. However, several studies seem to prove otherwise (these are a few of many).

A 2012 literature review published in Brazilian Oral Research (Genetics and Caries Prospects) concluded that, "In summary, we believe genetic susceptibility to caries can be identified under specific experimental conditions. Several genes most likely influence individual susceptibility to caries, and these include genes involved in enamel development, in saliva function, and in immune response."

The December 2003 issue of the Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice published a study calledEvidence of a Contribution of Genetic Factors to Dental Caries Risk, which compared the dental histories of nearly 1,200 sets of twins. This study's conclusions stated, "Current evidence supports the notion that there is an inherited variation in enamel development that is associated with increased occurrence of dental caries".

One year ago this month, PlosOne (a medical journal) carried a study called Multi-Dimensional Prioritization of Dental Caries Candidate Genes and Its Enriched Dense Network Modules. This study concluded that, "We identified 23 modules comprising of 53 genes. Functional analyses of these 53 genes revealed three major clusters: cytokine network relevant genes, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) family, and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) family, all of which have been previously implicated to play important roles in tooth development and carious lesions." Interestingly enough, all of the three families mentioned are made up of chemicals active in intracellular communication --- chemicals that would fit into that family of chemicals that we collectively call "INFLAMMATION".

So; what gives? Is the problem of Dental Caries "genetic" or is it the result of a crappy diet and failure to take care of your teeth? As mentioned earlier, it's probably some of each. You must understand something important about this genetic link. "Genetics" currently happens to be our most commonly used excuse for a wide variety of health problems. It's not my fault ---- blame it on momma. Or Grandpa. Or Uncle Rudy. Our society is expert at passing the buck. Probably why the phrase "the devil made me do it" strikes such a cord. But I regress. Back to the question of how this problem can be both genetic and diet-related at the same time. Enter something called epigenetics.

EPIGENETICS is an emerging branch of Genetics that says we are not as much the sum of our genes as we have been largely programmed to believe. Epigenetics is defined by Rachael Rettner of LiveScience as, ""Above" or "on top of" genetics. It refers to external modifications to DNA that turn genes "on" or "off." These modifications do not change the DNA sequence, but instead, they affect how cells "read" genes." In other words, everything hinges on whether certain genes are turned on (expressed) or turned off (not expressed). This begs the question of what turns genes on or off?

Interestingly enough, it's usually poor lifestyle choices that cause genes to be expressed in "bad" ways. What do I mean by this? How about smoking, lack of exercise, crappy diets, exposure to chemicals, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you have a much greater ability to control your life than previously believed --- particularly when it comes to tooth decay. Enter Weston Price and his Magnus Opus, 1939's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (HERE is an online copy of the book).

Dr. Price (1870-1948) never stopped asking why. He was so interested in the cause of Dental Caries (Cavities / Tooth Decay) that during the late 1920's and early 1930's he traveled around the world with his wife seeking out indigenous people groups who had not been exposed to modern foods --- particularly machine milled flours; and then comparing them to the same people groups who had. What possessed him to do this? As a dentist in Cleveland, he was in practice during the years when machine milled flour had become the norm (commercial milling of grains creates huge problems --- HERE is one of them). During this period of time he witnessed the implosion of American dental health right before his eyes.

Not only is the book itself excellent, but the pictures are incredible. If you are interested in real health, you want to at least take a look at this book, along with the wealth of information you will find at the WESTON PRICE FOUNDATION.

NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTSARE THEY EFFECTIVE?

Clker-Free-Vector-Images

Have you noticed the incredible number of studies that have come out over the course of the past decade saying that various nutritional supplements are not only ineffective, but dangerous as well? These dangerous and ineffective supplements range from Minerals to Herbs to to Antioxidants to .......... Fish Oil is a great example of this phenomenon. Whenever a study comes out touting FISH OIL as something beneficial to one's health, rest assured that on its heels will be several studies / articles touting the opposite (HERE are a couple). Below are some of the more recent headlines concerning Nutritional Supplements. The truth is, given a day or two, I could have provided you with thousands of similar.

WHY IS RESEARCH PROVING THAT NUTRITION DOES NOT MATTER?

When I was part of Kansas State University's dual degree program (Exercise Physiology / Nutrition) back in the mid 1980's, I heard an interesting "lecture on the sidewalk" in front of the anatomy building. One of the Ph.D instructors of my anatomy / physiology course was holding court; lecturing a group of pre-med students on nutrition. I will paraphrase. "Guy's; as long as you are getting enough calories, nutrition in America does not matter. Because they are so 'fortified' with vitamins and minerals, we could live on Twinkies and be healthier than the rest of the world". And we wonder why.......

Clearly, the medical community and pharmaceutical industry that largely controls them, detest nutritional supplements. The truth is, they want to control / regulate them. In fact, in the quarter century I have been in the field, the medical community and government have gone after Nutritional Supplements to make the "prescription only" numerous times. The only reason they failed was because the American people rose up and fought. Why was my instructor wrong about nutrition even though so many studies seem to be proving him right? What are some of the things that this individual clearly did not understand? Can Nutritional Supplements be a huge boost as far as regaining and maintaining health is concerned? Here is a partial list of the reasons why you are hearing that nutrition does not matter.

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE IS A HUGE FARCE: I have shown you repeatedly (HERE is an example from a few days ago) how studies can be set up to prove anything you want them to prove (HERE is another example). If you want to read about the myth ofEVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, just click the link. If you have not already figured it out, you'll realize that money is what makes the world go round, and Big Pharma --- the power behind the medical community ---- does not want you healthy. Healthy people do not need drugs. Big Pharma views you as a commodity. Nothing more; nothing less. The sicker / fatter / more sedentary you are, the more money they stand to make off of you over your lifetime.

MOST NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS ARE SYNTHETIC: Although synthetic nutrition is sometimes a viable solution for physicians looking to achieve a drug-like effect, most of the time this approach is problematic. You can read more on this issue HERE, but truthfully, you already know this intuitively. Eat foods made by God, avoid foods made by man. BTW, some of these like WHEAT can fool you. HERE'S why.

MOST NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS ARE OF POOR QUALITY: Is your Fish Oil Supplement refrigerated? Does it sit on the shelf in the light or heat? Is it checked for heavy metals, PCB's or dioxins? Is it from wild, cold-water fish or does it come from farm-raised fish? This is just one example of dozens. Cheap supplements are usually cheap for a reason. Much of this has to do with the fact that they are synthetic / man-made (see link on synthetic nutrition) or of inferior quality.

NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS IN AND OF THEMSELVES NEVER ADDRESS THE BIG PICTURE: Monotherapies do not change Physiology (﻿HERE﻿). In other words, it is a pipe dream to believe that simply taking this supplement, that vitamin, or some other product, is going to revolutionize your health. Health is a "BIG PICTURE" sort of thing. Fail to get the big picture, and you will fail in your quest for health.

PEOPLE HAVE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS: What most people want is to live like they've always lived, eat what they've always eaten, and maintain the same old self-destructive habits they always have, but be able to take a magical Nutritional Supplement that miraculously makes everything better. This is how medicine is practiced. You have "X" symptom, take drug "Y". Symptom "A? Just take drug "B". You know that SUGAR CAUSES CANCER, DIABETES, and a whole host of other health issues (HERE), yet you refuse to give up your SODAS. I could give you dozens of other examples but you get the point. Simply taking supplements without making changes to your diet and lifestyle are ineffective.

PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR INSTANT RESULTS: Are you willing to stick it out for a lifetime? Or are you one of those people who refuses to give up certain foods. Are you willing to add vegetables to your diet? What about EXERCISE? Instant fixes are rare in the field of Functional Medicine because it's all about changing the underlying physiology --- not merely covering or masking your symptoms. If you are really interested in going the distance, HERE are a few posts on getting started.

AGING, VITAL RESERVES, NUTRITION, AND DISEASE

Sabine van Erp - Alkmaar - Pixabay

"How old would you be if you didn't know how old you was?"- Satchel Paige

"Old age is not a disease." - Yours Truly

The great baseball pitcher for the Negro Leagues, Satchel Paige, got it right. These days, people's age should (and frequently is) calculated via various HEALTH CALCULATORS. These can be far more accurate than simply counting birthdays to come up with one's chronological age (HERE and HERE are other examples of these calculators). How accurate are these "calculators"? I'm not exactly sure, but the first and last links above showed that my life expectancy was supposed to be almost 108 years, while my "Body Age" (sometimes referred to as "Fitness Age") is currently 21. You're right; I didn't believe it either --- particularly in light of the fact that in a few weeks I will be 48. Although I am having a tough time buying into this entire concept (particularly as one who enjoys 'dangerous' hobbies such as MOTORCYCLING), the point is show people that we are not necessarily ruled by things like age and GENETICS nearly to the degree that some experts (including our doctors) would have us believe.

Why did I bring this up? The other day I discussed ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, and today we are going to discuss aging in general, what it is, roughly how it occurs, and how to go about slowing down the process. It's far too easy to look at the geriatric crowd (55 and over) and chalk their many health problems up to their age. This is where your doctor sits you down, looks you in the eye, and solemnly gives you words of wisdom such as, "Joe; you just aren't as young as you used to be". Today I am going to show you why you should not buy into this outdated line of thinking and all the baggage that comes with it.

Much of your quality of life comes down to something which the medical community refers to as "Function". When you hear me talk about Function, I am talking about a person's ability to accomplish everything they need to get done in the course of a normal day, and the level of health required to do so. Why is this important for you to understand at any age? The longer that folks can stay out of "Heaven's Holding Cell" (the nursing home), typically, the better their lives will be. The problem is, when you can no longer "Function" well enough to perform the things that make up the acronym D.E.A.T.H.(Dressing, Eating, Ambulation, Toilet, Hygiene), your odds of ending up there increase rather dramatically. My goal today is to show you how to take some years off of your "Body Age" and at the very least, question some of those DRUG COMMERCIALS that you see way too many of on television today.

It is important for people to remember that Big Pharma and Corporate Medicine typically view them as a commodity --- a money generating machine that can create hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars over the course of their lifetime. Think I'm over-exaggerating? Read a few of my posts tagged under "EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE" --- that is, if you can keep from upchucking. Until you realize that as far as Big Pharma is concerned, you are nothing more than a walking, breathing, dollar sign; you will be led down a path that might keep you alive a bit longer than might otherwise happen, but saps the magic and joy from your life in the process (HERE or HERE).

As we all know, much of health comes down to doing two things correctly. These have to do with the fact that you need to be vigorously active on a regular basis and feed your body nutritious food. Are these difficult? Sure they are --- particularly if you are living alone. But, fail to do these two things --- particularly in your younger years --- and you drain your body's "Vital Reserves" before you ever get to become an 'official' card-carrying member of AARP.

We have all heard the old adage, "You are what you eat". While this is certainly true, it is more accurate if we make a subtle change to the last word. The truth is, we are not really what we eat, as much as we are what we ate. In other words, the fact that you broke down and had a piece of birthday cake yesterday is not nearly so big a deal as is the fact that you lived as a SUGAR ADDICT for about thirty years of your life. Not that you cannot to some degree overcome this, but dealing with the INFLAMMATORY EFFECTS of that sugar (not to mention the medications and other chemical exposure) is going to take a toll on your system and its ability to DETOXIFY itself. Sugar is only one example of many. I could pick on SMOKERS, couch potatoes, or a whole host of other groups here. I think you probably get the point. All of this begs the question of what are Vital Reserves?

Vital Reserves are simply the excess materials needed to run the various processes, cycles, and metabolic pathways of life. Have you ever watched older folks look at young children and marvel at their energy? The Vital Reserves of children, are, by their very nature, virtually untapped. But what happens to those reserves in the child who never eats a vegetable (1/3 of those under 18 years old fall into this category)? What about the kids whose parents let them stay up as late as they desire? What about those kids who spend their days exercising their thumbs (texting, playing video games, and running the TV remote) yet never exercise their bodies or minds? What about those kids who, from an early age, become addicted to drugs, alcohol, JUNK FOOD, porn, or who-knows-what else? What about those kids who end up on all sorts of medications (like THESE) or receive their government-prescribed vaccine schedule in its entirety (HERE)? The body can and will use up massive amounts of its Vital Reserves of nutrients, vitamins, minerals, co-factors, enzymes, mitochondrial energy in the form of ATP, antioxidants, and DETOXIFICATION POWER, just trying to get through the teen years. That's why this post is not really directed at my senior readers.

Don't get me wrong, the peer-reviewed literature shows that any improvement in the areas of WEIGHT, DIET, EXERCISE, etc, etc, can provide a significant boost to one's lifespan and general quality-of-life at any age --- even the elderly. But the truth is, I would love to reach the younger generation before they become seniors. In all actuality, I would love to reach them before they get out of school. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that if you think that all too often, this is not happening. And if you think that today's senior citizens have health problems, just wait until you see tomorrow's seniors ---- you know; the folks who did not grow up active or raising a garden. Believe me when I tell you that it's going to get ugly. But other than being forced to contribute your hard-earned tax dollars largely to take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves, you don't have to be a part of that whole scene.

Simply start taking care of yourself --- today. If you take a little bit of time to learn about the common threads that relate most disease processes to each other, you will begin to understand why there are certain steps that should be taken in the battle against virtually any disease process you could name (HERE).

ARSENIC IN FRUIT JUICES

Silvia - Deutschland - Pixabay

The organic forms of arsenic are essentially harmless.Some scientific studies have shown that two forms of organic arsenic found in apple juice, dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) and monomethylarsinic acid (MMA), may also be a health concern.From a December 16, 2011 statement on the FDA's website. The statement was in response to an episode of the Dr. Oz Show.

The FDA finally did it. After tests of dozens of samples of fruit juices (apple and grape) tested on the Dr. Oz Show nearly two years ago produced arsenic readings of up to 36 ppb (parts per billion), the FDA has finally decided that we should be getting no more than 10 ppb of arsenic in our juices. All of this begs the question of why arsenic is found in juice --- or any foodstuffs for that matter --- in the first place. It is important to remember that arsenic is found naturally in the earth's crust, in our water supply, and in our soil in trace amounts. If this is true, what's the big hoo ha about?

The reason that there is arsenic found in these juices mostly has to do with what is sprayed on apples, grapes, and other fruits that the juices are made from. Many (maybe even most) countries that we import produce from, have little or no regulation as far as herbicides and pesticides are concerned. Chemicals that are banned for use by American agriculture are manufactured right here in the good ole USA, and then shipped overseas to be sprayed on foreign crops. The produce is then imported back into America and labeled "Safe" by the FDA. Look at any list of the worst fruits and vegetables for chemical residues, and you will always notice that grapes are at or near the top, with apples not far behind.

By the way, there is a reason that the American Academy of Pediatricians recommends that babies under 6 months old completely avoid juice; and that they also suggest no more than a maximum of 6 oz per day until they are 6 years old and no more than 12 oz per day after that. Little (i.e. none) of this has to do with arsenic. It has to do with the fact that most "juices" are really only a small percentage of juice, and mostly CHLORINATED / FLUORIDATEDSUGAR WATER (the whole mess being pasteurized so that anything vital and living is killed). How many kids do you know who drink mass quantities of juice because mom thinks it's healthier than other drinks like SODA? Is it any wonder that we have an epidemic of UNCONTROLLED BLOOD SUGAR and DIABETES in this country?

HEALTH or EXCUSES?THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK

Image by David Shankbone

All of us are guilty of using excuses. It's simple human nature (BTW, that was an excuse). Sometimes these excuses are legitimate (I was late to work this morning because my house burned down last nite), sometimes they are not (I can't workout today because I was abducted by aliens from Uranus last evening). The bottom line is that when it comes to your health and your weight, excuses are going to set you back dramatically. They also become a habit. Instead of making excuses, FORMULATE AN EXIT STRATEGY. I will leave you with a few of my favorites as far as things you can do to get healthy, get to a normal weight, feel great, and maintain it for the rest of your life with minimal effort.

What's interesting is how many people contact me (or leave comments on Facebook) saying this like this; "but how am I supposed to fix it?" It's a legitimate question, but one that I have provided an answer for over and over again. Even though it is far from 'comprehensive,' it's a starting point. Take a look at THIS PROTOCOL and see if some of it resonates with you. BTW, there is good reason that my clinic CHECKLIST HANDOUT starts out with an Elimination Diet.

THE BAN ON TRANS FATS

Igor Ovsyannykov from Pexel

"The removal of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils containing industrially produced trans fatty acids from the food supply has been described as one of the most straightforward public health interventions for improving diet and reducing the risk of noncommunicable disease."Dr. Shauna Downs, University of Sydney's Menzies Center for Health Policy, witing in the current issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Let me start by saying that I am a person who believes in personal-responsibility. I do not want the government acting as the "Food Police" --- something they are doing with increasing regularity. However, when people vote for government-funded healthcare, they do not typically realize that in the end, they are handing over the right for the government to control every facet of their lives --- including what they eat.

Despite what one believes about government-run healthcare, there are certain substances that have been labeled as "food", that are as far from the definition of food as one can get (HERE). MSGis one of these. Another is Trans Fats. Although TRANS FATS occur in nature in very small amounts (these are actually good for you), they are, for all intents and purposes, a man-made product that is not real food. Why should they be banned? Only because they are directly related to a whole host of devastating and deadly diseases such as heart disease, CANCER, DIABETES, infertility / endometriosis, gallstones, ALZHEIMER'S DEMENTIA, and a host of others. In fact, if a disease is considered to be INFLAMMATORY, it is likely to be related to the consumption of Trans Fats.

Studies have shown that when bans / mandatory labeling of Trans Fats were undertaken, good things resulted. One of these was a 35% reduction in the amount of Trans Fats found in Canadian breast milk. Another was a nearly 60% decrease in plasma Trans Fats here in America. Still another resulted in increasing levels of HDL (the so called "good" cholesterol) and decreasing LDL (the so called "bad" cholesterol).

BEETS ARE HEART HEALTHY

Anwar2

Maybe you've heard the term "Superfood" before. Superfoods are usually plant-based foods that are low in calories but extremely high in nutrition (omega threes, antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, etc). Beets are undoubtedly a Superfood. Note that I am not talking about pickled beets here, but beets that are eaten raw, or lightly baked / steamed. For years, I have been preaching the benefits of beets (both the root and the greens) as a huge help for liver / gallbladder issues as well as high cholesterol. Now it seems that portions of the medical community are coming around to this idea.

According to the latest issue of Hypertension: Journal of the American Heart Association, Dr. Amrita Ahluwalia and her research team from Queen Mary University of London found that, "Drinking a cup of nitrate-rich beetroot juice significantly lowered blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive individuals." Beet juice is thought to accomplish this by dilating the arteries via a conversion of organic nitrites into nitric oxide (NO) --- a powerful vasodilator that many are familiar with from its use in bodybuilding supplements.

Can't find good beets in your neck of the woods? Never fear, Standard Process is here. A product that I particularly like for my patients (and myself when beets are not available) is AF BETAFOOD. DR. ROYAL LEE formulated AF Betafood back in 1951, which was itself based on a product (BETAFOOD) that was formulated 70 years ago (1943) ---- during the peak of WWII. Why do I love the Whole Food Ideology behind Standard Process so much? It's utter simplicity is a breath of fresh air in our hi-tech world. Man can never improve on something made by God (HERE).

It works against INFLAMMATION. Not only does this potentially help with everything from Arthritis to Heart Disease, but is showing promise for various Inflammatory Neurodegenerative Diseases, including: ALZHEIMER'S,PARKINSON'S, MS, and a host of others.

And to top it all off, it tastes great. And face it --- if it didn't, most of us would not care so much about the health benefits.

If you're like me , you may have never heard of the Cinnamon Challenge until someone sent me a link to the forthcoming video. The Cinnamon Challenge is usually undertaken by kids who try to hold a tablespoon of Cinnamon powder in their mouths for somewhere between 10 and 60 seconds without consuming any kind of liquid. Dr. Steven Lipshultz, MD, of University of Miami's School of Medicine wrote of the potential dangers of this practice in this month's issue of the medical journal Pediatrics.

Not to make light of his study, but this reminds me of similar studies from our not so distant past. You know; the kind of taxpayer funded research that boils down to plain old common sense. These include things like, "Over the Road Truck Drivers Live Unhealthy Lifestyles", "Cattle Fart a Lot", or "Inhaling Powdered Cinnamon Could be Bad for your Health". As you might imagine, The Cinnamon Challenge can prove to be quite problematic. Below is one such example. BTW, as you are watching this clip, keep repeating to yourself, "This is a serious problem ---- this is a serious problem ---- this is a serious problem."

THE CINNAMON CHALLENGE WITH GLOZELL

DRUG RECALLS FREQUENTLY INVOLVE NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS

If you have been around the field of nutrition for very long (I have been studying or working in this field since 1986), you are aware that the medical community --- via the long arm of the government --- has tried numerous times (unsuccessfully I might add) to have dietary supplements classified as "prescription only". This is because many of them are said to be "dangerous" or even "deadly". But is this true? Certainly not! INEFFECTIVE maybe, but not dangerous. But be warned; many of the so-called "nutrition" companies are fly-by-night affairs who are marketing and selling junk nutrition (several examples among THESE POSTS).

A recent issue of the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine reported that just over half of all the Class I FDA Recalls are for dietary supplements. Most of this has to do with the fact that these supplements either contain things that are not on the label, they do not contain things that the label says that they do contain, or the ingredients are substandard. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. Particularly when you find out that most of these "rogue" supplements fall into one of three categories.

I have always said that if my life's purpose was making money, I would create a cheap weight loss formula using whatever garbage I could get my hands on, make all sorts of wild claims about its abilities, hire a couple of website / SEO gurus to promote it online, and sit back and rake in the cash from gullible consumers. And if I were really ambitious, I could take to the satellites and do a TV infomercial. Once people figure out it doesn't work as claimed (eat anything you want and still lose weight), I repackage the same formula and start the process over under a different corporation and with a "different" product.

As one might well suspect, the study's lead author, Dr. Ziv Harel of St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, stated that we need to, "regulate this industry through more stringent enforcement and a standard of regulation similar to that for pharmaceuticals. Keeping the status quo may taint the dietary supplement industry as a whole." Is Dr. Ziv correct here? What needs to be done?

Truthfully, I am not sure anything needs to be done. Regulation always leads to more regulation, which in turn leads to even more regulation. Although Dr. Mitch Katz (in an editor's note) states that the number of crappy dietary supplements is, "grossly underestimated", and that, "dietary supplements should be treated with the same rigor as pharmaceutical drugs and with the same goal: to protect consumer health," I am not personally convinced that anything drastic needs to be done about this problem.

Simply stop buying these cheap crappy supplements! Let the companies wither on the vine and die. If the claims seem too good to be true, they probably are! For instance, what is the best 'male enhancement' supplement for dealing with impotence? I discussed that just the other day --- and the answer is HERE. In fact, read what I had to say about this entire issue on my WHOLE FOOD NUTRITION PAGE. And the brutal truth is that I could say the exact same thing about the way that most people want to use dietary supplements.

But I hear it all the time. Hey Doc; you got anything good for high blood pressure? I need to lose about 60 lbs; what have you got for weight loss? What about my heart problems? How about my stomach problems? What can you do for my hormonal problems, acid reflux, fibromyalgia, blood sugar, chronic fatigue, (insert your disease of choice here)......cancer? This is how medicine is practiced in our modern, hi-tech medical culture. The patient has symptom A, so give the patient drug B. If you have Disease X, just take drug Y. This is what most people want. After all; it's easy. It doesn't require any effort from the patient (except maybe digging a few bucks out of their wallet to cover a co-pay). It's a truth that is sometimes hard to face ---- the fact that it's far easier to pay someone else to do something for us than to actually take care of ourselves. That pretty much describes the society we live in. It's not my fault. It's not my responsibility. Gimme, gimme, gimme!

The question that people really want answered is, "Hey Doc, What have you got that will cure all my health problems, make me lose weight, and keep me functioning in the bedroom, but allow me to keep eating the same crap, continue my same habits, and living the same self-destructive lifestyle that I have my whole life?” This isn't health! Well; maybe on TV drug commercial. Remember those catchy commercials for Vytorin? It's these bad genes I got from Uncle Alfredo! Disease, disability, and illness are never our fault. It's the promise of modern government-run healthcare. Health is not our responsibility. It's something that our doctors (and now our government) are supposed to do for us.

The truth is, when it comes to our health, we want things easy. Doctor appointments, diagnostic testing, MRI's, procedures, drugs, more drugs, and still more drugs. And then we start down a bit rougher path --- only now it's not drugs; it's surgeries. A few more turns on the Medical Merry-go-Round and maybe they'll figure out what is wrong with me? We want someone else to do it all for us. Like I said, it's easier that way. Give me something doc. What can you do for me doc?

Oh no, I don't like the taste of water. Oh doc, I can't stand vegetables. Sorry doc, I could never give up my nightly carton of ice cream. Participating in our own health is far too difficult ---- except to let doctors do things to us and prescribe things for us. But occasionally, someone sees the light and breaks free of this enslaving paradigm. What does it take for the light bulb to come on?

Dietary supplements are usually cheap junk. Quality Whole Food Nutritional Supplements are made from cold-processed, real, organically-raised plants and animals are different. If you are one of those who are spending part of the estimated 20 billion dollars a year that Americans spend on supplements, make sure you are getting the greatest amount of bang for your buck. Nutritional Supplements should be just that ---- supplemental to a diet rich in nutrient-dense Whole Foods. And do not be fooled by the fact that this piece from JAMA Internal Medicine ended with the "trust us" disclaimer ----The researchers reported no conflicts of interest. Don't kid yourself.

This article was not written with public safety in mind. It was written to soften up the public for the medical / pharmaceutical industry's next big grab ---- yet another attempt to heavily regulate nutritional supplements (including making them a prescription-only item). How do I know this? Despite the fact that there are, as claimed by the FDA, lots of cheap, ineffective dietary supplements on the market, the article stated that, "No adverse events related to these recalled products were noted in the FDA database". So even though many of the supplements were undeniably junk, there were no adverse events associated with them. Too bad we can't say that for THE PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL INDUSTRIES.

Like Annie said in her comment below, "it all works". The way you can help us reach more people is to forward these posts on to people you care about. Not to mention, it takes three seconds to like us on FACEBOOK.

Max Gerson was born in Germany in 1881. While in medical school, he focused his efforts on using diet to cure his migraine headaches. Having had good results treating himself, he began treating patients using his diet. It was not long before one of Dr. Gerson's patients who was on his "Migraine Diet" realized that it had cured his 'Skin Tuberculosis'. Eventually, Gerson ended up creating a special treatment program for Skin TB at Munich's famed University Hospital using his diet as the foundation of the treatment protocol. Dr. Gerson's diet therapy for Skin TB was so successful that he ended up publishing numerous papers in the day's peer-reviewed scientific medical journals. But the icing on the cake was his experiment on 450 people with Skin TB ---- 446 were completely cured using his Whole Foods diet as their treatment.

It was because of this that Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, sought out Dr. Gerson to help his wife. She had contracted lung TB, and all forms of conventional medical treatment had failed her. Dr. Gerson's diet not only cured her, but ultimately, Dr Schweitzer cured his own TYPE II DIABETES with the same diet. Gerson was eventually eulogized by Schweitzer (he moved to the US in the 1930's).

“…I see in him one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine. Many of his basic ideas have been adopted without having his name connected with them. Yet, he has achieved more than seemed possible under adverse conditions. He leaves a legacy which commands attention and which will assure him his due place. Those whom he has cured will now attest to the truth of his ideas.”

Prior to his death, Gerson went on to use his Whole Food Diet to treat many other chronic health conditions ---- including heart disease and cancer. Despite the fact that he and his (cured) patients testified before congressional hearings back in the 1940's, he was branded as what DR ROBERT MENDHELSON would have referred to as a 'Medical Heretic' and persecuted relentlessly by our federal government. Finally, in 1977 ---- 18 years after his death ---- his daughter Charlotte founded the Gerson Institute in Mexico (just south of San Diego in Tijuana) to be able to treat diseases like cancer, without harassment from the FDA and other governmental organizations.

Below is a recent video of Dr. Gerson's 91 year old daughter Charlotte. I love Charlotte because she is passionate about what she is doing, and has obviously practiced what she preaches. Let me ask you a simple question before I leave. Who do you trust more; Max & Charlotte Gerson, or the FDA? If you have followed my blog for very long, you'll quickly realize that the FDA has a serious credibility gap (HERE).

ARTIFICIAL OR SYNTHETIC FISH OIL?

Quang Nguyen vinh - HCM city/Vietnam - Pixabay

I subscribe to MedPage Today --- a free service that gives me daily updates on pertinent medical research in my email. In Saturday's "Lab Notes" section by Chris Kaiser (Some Fish Oil Fishier than Others) he wrote that, "Synthetic fish oils found in most supplement capsules may not have the same beneficial effects at the cellular level as their natural counterparts." Although I have written extensively about SYNTHETIC VITAMINS and ARTIFICIAL NUTRITION in the past, I was not aware that fish oil is now one of those nutrients that is being faked. Sure, I realize that some fish oil is of a very poor quality, but what does it mean to create "Synthetic Fish Oils"?

SYNTHETIC DHAThe first thing I did was to Google "Synthetic DHA". Low and behold, there were hundreds of stories of Synthetic DHA. According to a January 2011 study in the biomedical journal Biochimie, DHA (Docosahexaenoic Acid) ---- one of the two active ingredients in Fish Oil ---- isan omega-3 fatty acid that is a primary structural component of the human brain, cerebral cortex, skin, sperm, testicles and retina. It can be obtained directly from maternal milk or fish oil.

After a bit of looking around, I found out that a company called Martek Biosciences Corporation, creates synthetic DHA via taking certain oils from genetically modified fungus and algae, and then using hexane (similar to propane) to extract DHA. When this product was first released, it was not necessarily intended to be of nutrutional benefit (the studies on it were incomplete). The benefit was being able to say that it was "closest to human milk". Although Synthetic DHA was recently banned from use in "Organic Baby Formula", it is still used in numerous regular BABY FORMULAS. This despite the fact that MBC's own research has shown that lab rates given Synthetic DHA have, "significant increase in relative liver weights," when compared to controls.

SYNTHETIC EPAEPA (Eicosapentaenoic Acid) is the other active ingredient in Fish Oil. Rather than being a "structural oil" like DHA, EPA provides the Anti-inflammatory portion of Fish Oil. It is the part of the Fish Oil molecule that is going to protect you against the whole array of INFLAMMATORY ILLNESSES (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and a whole host of others).

Synthetic EPA (EPA-E or Ethyl Eicosapentaenoic Acid) has been patented and is marketed as a drug under the names Vascepa, Epadel, and EPAX. EPA-E has shown to be clinically effective for the same things that natural EPA has been shown effective for --- without the side effects. For more information about Fish Oil, the best kind(s) to take, and why it is so critical for good health, just visit our PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE FISH OIL page.

Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).